Talk:Restoration Path

Web site

As of October 2019, the web site http://restorationpath.org appears to be offline. Has the organization shut down for good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidrater (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

[Untitled]

This article seems to be written in a biased manner, the whole thing is mostly the controversy. I think there should be a bit more about the organization and stuff about it than there is now, because now the whole article is pretty much just controversy. I am against this group but Wikipedia has to be written in a non-biased way. Imjustheretomakebonusstage (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if there honestly is nothing good to say about these people, we shouldn't make something up just for the sake of a perception of balance. That's what the media do, which is why they give equal time to both sides of non-existant controversies (such as creationism and homoeopathy). TRiG (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The former leader: http://www.gracerivers.com/i-acknowledge/ . Here and thee in other articles is also something about the history. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 18:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Love In Action → Restoration Path – This organization has changed its name. See: http://restorationpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/March-2012-Color.pdf. Wikipedian77 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just do it and note that the group has changed it's name as of March 2012. Insomesia (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I go about doing it? Wikipedian77 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Be sure to add into the intro when the name changed. Insomesia (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider changing the page title

As it currently stands, this page's subject is almost exclusively the old controversy. As such, my suggestion is that the page should be titled after the controversy. I believe the current title is inaccurate because, in its current state there is little historical reference beyond that one controversy.

In fact, to be most accurate and compliant with the guidelines, I suggest the whole article flagged as single-pov since the info noted does not reflect both sides of the event. I have first-person relationships with members who were at LIA when the situation first began to play out. There were, most definitely, multiple pov (not just the one the article gives precedence). In its present form the article makes no reference to these different contemporaries (members of LIA at the time the scene played out).

There is plenty of history outside that event. The organization did not begin, end, or exist only from and for such.

As with most groups, there is a range of positive and negative, objective and subjective experiences. LIA is no exception to that. I have first-hand knowledge of LIA, its leaders and members as far back as 1985. If that adds any credence, my pov is that this document needs to be flagged until it evolves into a complete and full-perspective research article.

If I knew how to, I would flag the article as single-piv and potentially incorrectly titled (until such time the collective editors can complete their research). I respectively ask the editors consider doing so themselves until the article more fully confines itself to the fair pov guidelines. Tesseract501 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reformatted this to match Wikipedia's manual of style.

There are always multiple points of view. Wikipedia reflects topics in proportion to how they are discussed by reliable sources. Articles should not include original research, such as information you personally know to be true but has not been published, and should also not include content just because it is an opposing point of view, because that would be false balance. If you know of verifiable, reliable sources, especially sources that are independent of the organization, those would be greatly appreciated for improving the article.

As for renaming the article, since there are reliable sources covering several years of the organization's activities, that seems like it's doing a disservice to the reader by removing context. The way to fix the problems you describe is to find better sources. Be aware that scientific consensus rejects conversion therapy, and so this is considered a fringe perspective. Wikipedia favors sources about this ministry over sources provided by the ministry. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for my delay (I'm a less-often talk-pager). I personally do not agree with the so called conversion therapies, so my noted concern regarding the article had nothing to do with that aspect of ancillary information. Maybe the problem is that that I may be confused regarding the purpose of this article.

Is this article about the practice of conversion therapy?

Is it about the the two specific historical controversies the article is writing about?

Or is about the organization (in total) that was formerly named Love-in-Action?

If it is about the practice of conversion therapy, there may need to be a separate article about the example organizations referenced within it. Or, at least some clarification that the organizations noted are examples of groups that practice conversion therapy.

If it is about the two historical controversies that took place within, and ancillary to, the organizations listed, then maybe there only needs to be a bit more that clarifies the article as such. Unfortunately, it seems, first-hand accounts that conflict with the opposing opinions accepted in the article may be deemed unacceptable. This may be acceptable (but not necessarily accurate) as long as those first-hand accounts published in the article are not given credence (or preferential inclusion) while the opposing first-hand accounts are required to conform to a higher bar in order to be included. From what I see from the references associated with the published first-hand accounts, they do not seem to follow such a high-bar that would justify excluding published first-hand opinions of opposing viewpoints. My concern was not to require opposing viewpoints, but that omitting such viewpoints when they are of equal source-caliber, does seem to skew the POV. Regardless, it may be best if first-hand-accounts in articles are listed as opinion, or at least perspective viewpoints, not taken as historical fact.

If the article is intended to be about the full history of the organization formerly known as Love-in-Action, then I still believe the article is incomplete as it stands. Writing about only two events in any organizations history (and only the perspective of one of the party's involved) is not a complete work. Is the reason for this because all other aspects and events about the organization are deemed unacceptable due to an inability to find references that are acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines?

Regarding the opinions noted in the article based on individual experiences (individual first-hand accounts) -- how does an individual with a different first-hand experience of the same event present their case for acceptance? Does their opinion have to be published in a book of equal stature? I'm really not trying to be sarcastic, but in this case my first-hand experience convinces me that the article as it currently stands does not present a complete or accurate history of the organization. I appreciate your challenges in writing an article with as much accuracy as possible; I personally never quite understood the intricacies of what Wikipedia considers acceptable sources versus unacceptable sources, or where fact ends and opinion begins regarding so-called "fringe" classifications.

If the article is supposed to be about the organization (not the theory of conversion, or specific to the ancillary controversies alone), might we at least indicate the article is not yet complete? Tesseract501 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources are lacking. I agree that the article is incomplete and has many other problems. You're correct that sources need to be published in works which meet certain standards. It can be books, magazines, newspapers, journals, websites, or others, as long as they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (see WP:RS). What this means in practice is pretty vague, and it depends in part on the claim being made. Non-controversial claims which aren't about living people can be supported by weaker sources that wouldn't be acceptable for outlandish claims, or claims that might be seen as defamatory. If that seems a bit arbitrary, it kind of is, but it's decided by WP:CONSENSUS. Looking at WP:RSN may be helpful. Sources also need to be verifiable, meaning that someone else could confirm that they exist as cited. This doesn't mean they have to be online, just that they're available somewhere.

Creating a spin-off article about the controversies would be very tricky, and I'm skeptical it would work. See Wikipedia:Content forking and WP:COATRACK and others. I think a better option would be to tighten up this article, otherwise we end up with two badly sourced articles instead of just one.

Wikipedia already has an article about conversion therapy, so if Restoration Path meets notability guidelines, then the article should be about things directly related the organization and little else. Does it meet notability guidelines? I think so, but it's debatable. The guidelines are here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The article is definitely incomplete, but, so are pretty much all articles: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. If we had more sources, we could figure out how to fix it. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate reply. I appreciate your effort and appreciation for accuracy, especially when it comes to potentially controversial topics. You have my respect and gratitude. Most of the data is experiential, hence first-person responses that aren't published in Wikipedia-accepted sources may prove difficult -- although there may be some sources beyond generic media articles, etc. Regardless of the outcome, thanks again. Tesseract501 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Tags

This article was already tagged for over-reliance on references to primary sources. There are a lot of other problems, some of which I have tried to fix. I have added tags for undue weight (there is very little in the article about the organization about from criticisms and controversies), missing citations (there is a lot of uncited material), and a potential need for a complete rewrite. SunCrow (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the reason they dissolved?

I finally founded this on the net: The reason why they dissolved is because of the movie Boy Erased.

Ministry Announcement | Restoration Path (archive.org) Ndplinhdam (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)