Talk:Restored Hope Network

COI
This article was flagged similarly to when the article Love Won Out was created. The article was not created by this organization so should not be a COI. @jinkinson. The article can be improved to not read like an advertisement but rather an addition to the list of Ex-Gay Organizations. Restored Hope Network is a new organization that grew largely out of the closure of Exodus International. Its board members consist of persons from Exodus, NARTH and other leading Ex-Gay Organizations. Like Love Won Out this new organization also holds conferences to promote conversion therapy in a religious context. Conversion Therapy is an LGBT issue recently has been raised in California and New Jersey where legal challenges are being brought to new laws restricting conversion therapy like the one this organization and other Ex-Gay organizations promote. The main page of this organization is located here: http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com/ Their listed mission statement reads "Restored Hope is an inter-denominational membership governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. We proclaim that Jesus Christ has life-changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; we also seek to equip His church to impart that transformation." and their page on their positions is here http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com/index.php/who-we-are/what-we-believe. It is important for the article to report what their positions are, and how it ties in to other Ex-Gay organizations for which many of them participate in this organizations conferences, as well as how this organization identifies as an ex gay organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycutiepi (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy section problems
The section on conversion therapy currently has a WP:SYNTH problem - i.e., it basically says that the group has this stance, all these medical groups have that stance, so therefor these medical groups disagree with the subject group. While the conclusion is basically true, it is not appropriately sourced, as there is no source given that is covering both sides as a disagreement. I imagine such sources can be found. And for the contrast with what they're advocating being illegal in some places, this Newsweek source may do the trick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Restored Hope Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131205200814/http://narth.com/2013/06/narth-statement-on-exodus/ to http://narth.com/2013/06/narth-statement-on-exodus/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203054945/http://www.wpsw.org/feature-article/ to http://www.wpsw.org/feature-article/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

not conversion therapy?
An editor just replaced the sourced statement that RHN engages in conversion therapy with a statement that they don't, sourced to their own FAQ. However, their FAQ is largely poopooing the whole term "conversion therapy", which they recognize as a damaging term to be associated with. This is like a pyramid scheme operation having a FAQ saying that they're not a pyramid scheme, but rather "multi-level marketing". This is an example of where we must rely on reliable third-party sources. I have restored the material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the above editor's position on the matter, however I think it is disingenuous not to include both sides of an issue, so instead of replacing the text this time, I will simply add the group's commentary at the bottom of the section to clarify their stated position, and identify it as such, thus allowing the reader to make his/her own informed decision about whether the group actually practices Conversion Therapy. -User:TexasHoosier (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Too often "both sides" is false balance. Wikipedia doesn't assume that there are two equally valid sides to any given issue. Since Restored Hope Network is not qualified to define conversion therapy, their public relations-related statements do not have the same weight as reliable and independent sources. Conversion therapy is a pseudo-medical practice, so sources for this need to follow both WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS.
 * As for your edit, "it should be noted" is editorializing language. Restored Hope Network is in no position to "refute" this, either. Discuss on this talk page before restoring these changes. Grayfell (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Response from Texas Hoosier (sorry - new to editing and such, and trying to get a handle on the "talk" section as I have never experienced pushback on the couple of changes I made previously on other pages). @Grayfell I am not sure why you believe I have a conflict of interest on the subject. I actually had never heard of this organization prior to reading a news article today. Upon reading the website of the organization and the Wikipedia page, I saw there were large disparities between what the organization says it believes, and what other (news/blog) sites say the organization believes. I believe it is disingenuous not to present both sides of an argument where there are two, and not just the narrative of one side.

I also see that others have referenced the organization's website (see "Positions" section), so I don't know why it would be appropriate to do so in one section and not another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHoosier (talk • contribs) 04:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for responding here. Please continue to discuss this instead of edit warring.
 * I accept that you do not have a conflict of interest. It was a concern because you are a new editor who has mostly edited this one topic in a flattering light, based on primary sources. COI editing is a problem, so this is a concern worth addressing.
 * Generally speaking, we use primary sources for non-controversial details. In almost all cases, Wikipedia strongly prefers independent sources, and as I mentioned above, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. Since I don't really know the organization, I don't really think this is my "fight" per se.  But I am concerned that the organization seems to be charged with doing something it says it is not. It's also just interesting to me how this whole Wikipedia editing thing works, and I am not sure I agree with it.  However, that said, I did a quick Google search, and the following article entitled "Facebook shuts down Christian ministry's page with no explanation" seems to be an independent source.  Would it be possible to use information from this source to add to the page? Or what from this article would be considered information that could be quoted or cited?  Perhaps just that Facebook shut down their page without explanation?  Just want to better understand here, and as you have mentioned, try to discuss before editing.  Thanks TexasHoosier (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Christian Post has a mixed history over at our Reliable Sources Noticeboard, being judged unreliable in matters pertaining to abortion but sometimes seen as an ok source in other contexts. They do seem to be pulling some tricks with their URLs, however, as the article you linked to was not the article you were apparently reading, but paid content on "Qualifying for Social Security Spousal Benefits". I believe this is the article that you wanted. In this case, the article looks a lot like what is sometimes called "churnalism" here, an article that is almost all a restatement of material that was in the press release. (Note that not only is there no statement from Facebook on the matter, there's not even a statement that Facebook failed to give CP a response when they reached out for comment, which would be normal journalistic practice had that basic step been taken.) I'd tread carefully with that source -- it looks like all they have is CP's claim that their page was shut down without explanation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the only thing this source could be used for is "Facebook removed the group's page from its site in October 2020". Any analysis or editorializing would need to be attributed to more reliable source. In this case "with no explanation" is subtle editorializing, as is the group's speculation about motives. Without that context, this seems trivial. Any use of the Christian Post source for commentary about the meaning of conversion therapy seems completely undue. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, this trivial incident cannot be used as justification for adding RHN's grandstanding or claims of being persecuted. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting, okay thanks guys. I may search a little more or just move on. But thanks for the info! TexasHoosier (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)