User talk:Joshuajohanson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Context Specific Therapy
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Context Specific Therapy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fireplace 23:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
I just want to thank you for remaining civil during our discussions at Talk:Richard Cohen (lecturer) and elsewhere. I realize that we have differing views, but when people remain civil, as you have, it's much easier to find the balance. Thanks. Joie de Vivre 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Park Street Church
Please see Talk:Park_Street_Church#Category:Ex-gay movement. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LDS Church & Sexuality
I must say I really like what you did to the homosexuality article of the LDS church. Very NPOV and lots of additional content.
- Thanks!Joshuajohanson 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
- Feel free to throw this wherever you want (i.e. main page) and remove this text.
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you this barnstar for all your hard work expanding Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Chupper 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] May 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Homosexuality. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be a pest, but I really was trying to represent Lisa Diamond's view the best I can. She did report that bisexual women report "significantly larger absolute changes in sexual attractions than lesbians." Looking back at my edit, I think my wording of "significant change" might have been misinterpretated as a large change, rather than a measurable change, which is how Lisa Diamond used it. I recognize my error and am satisfied with the way the article is written that she "measured changes in sexual attractions," since that is all that I meant by significant change. Still, I don't think keeping the same language as Diamond used qualifies as "personal analysis" simply because I failed to disambiguate her probable meaning.Joshuajohanson 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The edit I was objecting to was this one where you changed the quote from the APA from "is not changeable." to "is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." This completely changed the meaning of the sentence and was clearly not supported by the cited source. Gwernol 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Although the problem has been resolved, I disagree with Gwernol. The text you changed was a direct quote from the ref'd text, and although I prefer the current version, you were well within the bounds of good faith and decorous behavior in making the change you made. I hope that you will gently push back by pointing this out to Gwernol.LCP 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- LCP, please read the cited source, at [1]. It states "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.". It is not acceptable to represent that statement with the text "is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.". This is the opposite of what the cited source says, and to pretend that the change was a direct quote from the source isn't correct. Gwernol 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The edit I was objecting to was this one where you changed the quote from the APA from "is not changeable." to "is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." This completely changed the meaning of the sentence and was clearly not supported by the cited source. Gwernol 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Gwernol, I do not know whether or not you will see this comment, but I did read the entire cited source. And as I tried to indicate and as Joshuajohanson points out below, the APA text actually does contain both statements. So firstly, it would be decorous for you to read sources more thoroughly before you censure other Wikipedians. Secondly, you may not agree with Joshuajohanson's take of the article, but because the article does contain both statements, he was within his rights to make the change. AND, since the second statement does not contradict the first, I don't think you can even say that he was playing fast and loose with the text. Were the text he used actually NOT in the APA article, then I think you might have had grounds to complain. But that was not the case. What was the case, in this instance, is that you and he had a legitimate interpretive disagreement and, without reading his source thoroughly, you warned him off. That is not conducive to a good Wikipedia. Thirdly, apart from the issue of the text, you seem to be imputing ideas to me that I have never stated and do not hold. I have never written anything to indicate that I think homosexuality is a mental disorder or to suggest that homosexuals try to change their sexual orientation, and so I do not appreciate the lecture.LCP 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The exact text of cited source is as follows, with my quote and the original quote in italics:
- Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
- The exact text of cited source is as follows, with my quote and the original quote in italics:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It has both quotes in there. I thought my quote was more general, whereas the original quote seemed to apply only to treatments to change sexual orientation. Right now the article has both quotes, which seems contradictory. Maybe there is something I am not seeing, but I still think my interpretation is at least plausible. Anyway, I think this is more of a discussion for the homosexuality talk page than my talk page.Joshuajohanson 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Gratuitous assertions
Joshuajohanson, I am sympathetic to what you trying to accomplish. I think that, as someone who has left the homosexual lifestyle, you have a very important perspective. I also think much of the content of the homosexual articles is slanted by those who fear or chaff against anti-homosexual bias, and that the current cultural climate is hyper-vigilant about “homophobia.” Because of this, one needs to be exceptionally rigorous in ensuring that everything one asserts is true AND solidly supported. I would encourage you to strive to be more objective in your arguments. When you assert a position without warrant, as you have done on your reading of the IDC’s F66, your destroy your credibility. If it turns out that you’ve misread something or inadvertently but forward a flawed argument, you’ll gain more credibility by immediately giving way than by tenaciously holding on to an evidently flawed position.LCP 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't understand what is going on then. I went to a regular doctor, who was licensed by the APA and received therapy to change my orientation. Maybe I'm not reading everything right, but I know they allow it because I got it from them. I have found nothing that shows they don't allow it. What does it mean when the APA says it "affirms the following principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation."[2] What does it mean when they print an article arguing against efforts to ban it if it weren't allowed in the first place?[3] If it is not allowed, how is it that places like http://www.healinghomosexuality.com offer professional counseling? How is it that the ACA allows an article to be published that recommmends sending gays to religious organizations (mostly pro-gay, but includes ex-gay organizations like Courage International)[4].
- What treatment is it that the WHO says ego-dystonic homosexuals may seek? I dropped saying they supported it, and even dropped saying it was reparative therapy in the article, and suggested that they say they can seek treatment without specifying what that treatment was or what it was for. How is saying patients may seek treatment different from saying they allow treatment? Combat law says the ICD-10 "distinguishes between ego syntonic and ego dystonic homosexuality, and specifically mentions ego dystonic homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality as psychiatric disorders."[5] After saying homosexuality was dropped as a disorder from the ICD-10, Dr. Martell said "related disorder “ego-dystonic sexual orientation” remains in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases."[6] The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission goes as far as to say "This diagnosis can allow families to commit young persons who are just “coming out” and experiencing guilt or uncertainty."[7] The Alternative Law Forum (a very pro-gay law organization) states the "ICD-10 clearly includes even ego dystonic heterosexuality as a disorder." It futher states the ICD-10 "distinguishes between “ego syntonic” and “ego dystonic” homosexuality and categorises ego dystonic homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality as psychiatric disorders. In ego dystonic homosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality, the gender identity or sexual preference is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different and seeks treatment. In ego syntonic homosexuality, by contrast, the individual is comfortable with his or her sexual preference or gender identity. Psychiatric treatment to change the patient’s identity or sexual preference is warranted in the case of ego dystonic sexuality of any kind.[8]"
- I am sorry, but I just don't even understand what anyone is talking about anymore. I would like to include these arguments in the talk, but I don't want to loose credibility. I don't see how I am "evidently flawed" or how these assertions are gratuitous. Can you enlighten me?Joshuajohanson 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am not sure how to respond. I do see your point and I sympathize. You must feel incredibly frustrated. As for my comment, it had to do only with what I personally saw regarding IDC F66. I think a big problem with the reparative therapy article is that it is so US centric. I noted this by the adding the disclaimer that currently sits at the top of the article. Perhaps you can start a thread pointing this out. OR, even better, perhaps you can craft a section titled something like, “International Views of Reparative Therapy.” You should first publish it on the Talk page and ask for input. If you have some solidly referenced statements, you should be able to get the section to stick. Also, I do hope that you will follow up on the Kinsey Institute. As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe that they hold a published theory of sexuality according to which sexuality and sexual orientation is much more fluid than the current APA view. Finally, check out Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM and Politics. Although the section would not be directly useful, I think you’ll find the information encouraging. Although the APA is a powerful and important organization, it is not the only authority in the world and it is not above politics. Best of luck. Please feel free to email me directly if you want some pre-publication feedback.LCP 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Joshuajohanson, I hope that you will continue to strive to not take it personally. Please try to remember, Wikipedia is not important in the big scheme of things. For the most part, it is just a great place to find information about things like French fries. Some of the non-controversial scientific content is suppose to be reliable too [9] [10]. Regarding the controversial topics, if you look at any of their Talk pages, you quickly get an idea of how partisan and ridiculous the articles tend to be. In other words, “it is a mean game for low stakes.” This might sound terrible, but to some extent, we Wikipedians are a bunch of losers, people who, for whatever reason, probably haven’t found a voice in more stable, reputable, or academic publications. I think the satire at the Onion sums up Wikipedia beautifully. It is quite fun: [11]. Regarding being a terrible person, I hope that you will remember that our ultimate value comes only from God’s love for us [12], and that He does not evaluate things the way we evaluate things [13]. For example, men cling to pride, and the world loves and rewards it when it is coupled with cunning [14]. However, pride is among the greatest of abominations to God [15]. In contrast, the thing with which you were afflicted is usually the result of run of the mill human weakness. And while people single out homosexuality as if it is something exceptional, in the divine scheme of things, it is probably not much different from heterosexual desire. This, I think, is why the Catholic Church refuses to call homosexuality a “mental disorder” and instead calls it an “objective disorder” [16]. Regardless of whether one has heterosexually or homosexually oriented sexuality, the Church exhorts us all to the type of chastity that is suited to our vocation. The Church states,
-
- “The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech. Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end” [17].
-
- One of the ideas I love best comes from this text: “either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.” Finally, remember that you ultimately can’t do anything by yourself, for like everyone else, you are merely dust [18][19]. I exhort you to offer your sufferings to Lord [20] and to put yourself entirely in his hands through the Blessed Mother [21][22].LCP 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note! I am trying to validate my email, and then I'll send you a note. This might not be until Monday.LCP 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Joshuajohanson, I hope that you will continue to strive to not take it personally. Please try to remember, Wikipedia is not important in the big scheme of things. For the most part, it is just a great place to find information about things like French fries. Some of the non-controversial scientific content is suppose to be reliable too [9] [10]. Regarding the controversial topics, if you look at any of their Talk pages, you quickly get an idea of how partisan and ridiculous the articles tend to be. In other words, “it is a mean game for low stakes.” This might sound terrible, but to some extent, we Wikipedians are a bunch of losers, people who, for whatever reason, probably haven’t found a voice in more stable, reputable, or academic publications. I think the satire at the Onion sums up Wikipedia beautifully. It is quite fun: [11]. Regarding being a terrible person, I hope that you will remember that our ultimate value comes only from God’s love for us [12], and that He does not evaluate things the way we evaluate things [13]. For example, men cling to pride, and the world loves and rewards it when it is coupled with cunning [14]. However, pride is among the greatest of abominations to God [15]. In contrast, the thing with which you were afflicted is usually the result of run of the mill human weakness. And while people single out homosexuality as if it is something exceptional, in the divine scheme of things, it is probably not much different from heterosexual desire. This, I think, is why the Catholic Church refuses to call homosexuality a “mental disorder” and instead calls it an “objective disorder” [16]. Regardless of whether one has heterosexually or homosexually oriented sexuality, the Church exhorts us all to the type of chastity that is suited to our vocation. The Church states,
-
[edit] Proposed deletion of OneByOne
OneByOne has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this organization or company might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section on Mormonism in "Religion and Homosexuality"
I thought that you might want to add to the comments on Homosexuality and Mormonism; specifically, that Morman's believe that it is curable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#ChristianityLCP 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of People Can Change
A tag has been placed on People Can Change requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- WebHamster 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of People Can Change
An article that you have been involved in editing, People Can Change, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Can Change. Thank you. AecisBrievenbus 12:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Price of weekends makes it look like a plug.
You might want to consider taking that info out.LCP 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- lol. Fireplace was the one who put in the price of the weekends, I think to emphasize how expensive it is, to back up his theory that everyone is in it for the money. I just added the UK price to emphasize that it is international.Joshuajohanson 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- What was it, $600? That actually doesn't sound to bad if they can deliver what they promise.LCP 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exodus International help
As a Christian interested in the relationship between religion and homosexuality, thanks for your work here. Perhaps you've noticed that the Exodus article is direly unbalanced. I've tried on three separate occasions to work on it, but as someone who hates the organization, I couldn't bring myself to do it. I hope someone can. --Ephilei 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mail
Hi Josh. You got mailDocleaf 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MormonAdFamilyPhoto.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MormonAdFamilyPhoto.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New article
Feel free to edit Richard and Joan Ostling or cite them. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Focus on the Family Category Removal
I agree with the principle in removing the "Homophobia" category from the Focus on the Family article; but I guarantee this will open up an ugly can of worms that will be very tough to get settled (See AFA Talk Page Archives for a similar incident). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Study at UW
Hi! I'm part of a group at UW in Computer Science trying to make editing in Wikipedia easier. I'd love to talk to you and other Wikipedians in the Seattle area about your practices. You can find my webpage at [23] and email me from there or you can post on my talk page. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayur (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Simon LeVay
You might want to take a look at the article on Simon LeVay. Your recent edit there perhaps hasn't come out quite right. Skoojal (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I don't know what happened.Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:One by One booth.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:One by One booth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] May 2008
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Homosexuality and Christianity. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ akendall 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Mr. Johanson:
Thank you for catching and correcting the inaccuracies on the Alan Chambers page.
