Talk:Evergreen International

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

- Wasn't this an airline? --Kilo-Lima 18:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. (see http://www.evergreenaviation.com), but it's a separate company User:Richman9 — Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 24 December 2005

Article shows a slanted view that shows only one point of view about what Evergreen does. How about some mention to the fact that most reputable medical associations feel that repairitive therapy as possably doing more harm then good. The fact that the article claims that evergreen does not perform repairitive therapy, yet while describing services that evergreen performs as being the same thing as repairitive therapy shows a bias in favor of evergreen and the "ex-gay" movement [[Hypernick1980 09:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]

Agreed. I've added a section on the controversies. User:Richman9 — Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 24 December 2005

Not sure how I ended up mixing those other changes with the dablink, but it wasn't intentional. Gazpacho 06:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of [the controversy section] has been called into question since Evergreen does not attempt reparative therapy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.254.226 (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC) to the main article and moved here by Chupper.[reply]

I appreciate Richman9 & Hypernick1980's concerns of neutrality, however the article now blatantly contradicts itself. The article states that Evergreen "does not offer therapy, either psycho- or reparative therapy". Later we have a whole section talking about controversy of reparative therapy.

I do recognize the issue with "but does offer a large selection of therapeutic literature in their bookstore, while also maintaining contact with counseling agencies throughout the United States and the World." However, the controversy section needs to deal with this article specifically, and tie in concepts here. It can't just talk about it in general. If we are going to leave controversy in, let's add in sourced information on why this organization is causing controversy, and how it is tied to reparative therapy. Chupper 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a first step then? It seems that there has been no response to adding sourced information. Therefore, should the controversy section be revised? Sylverdin 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, based on their web page, the group heavily promotes reparative therapy, and gives referrals to a network of (presumably licensed) therapists who practice it. To say that they don't offer reparative therapy is kind of a semantic game. I think it's safe to say that they promote reparative therapy. COGDEN 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The medical organization statements are irrelevant to Evergreen, because they only talk about therapies that view homosexuality as a mental disorder. By that definition, gender-affirmation and context specific therapy are not considered reparative therapies. Evergreen never talks about whether it is a mental disorder. The therapists that it recommends are licensed by these organizations and follow the guidelines set forth by the APA.http://www.apa.org/pi/sexual.html Statements about whether sexual orientation is changeable are also irrelevant to Evergreen, since their mission is only to diminish attractions, not change orientation. Other statements, especially from Just the Facts, are completely taken out of context.Joshuajohanson 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Approaches that are beneficial" (here), Evergreen points to Nicolosi's theories and Moberly's theories. On Evergreen's homepage (here) they link to Richard Cohen's book. All three of these are exactly the kind of views that the mental health community directs their condemnation towards. Fireplace 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Mainstream medical view of attempts to change sexual orientation" there is no need to repeat all three paragraphs, since you provide reference to the Main article: Reparative therapy#Mainstream medical view of reparative therapy. I recommend deleting the 3 paragraphs. richman9 07:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen website says "The Bottom Line: Evergreen does not advocate any particular form of therapy."[1] It also never claims sexual orientation can ever be changed. It is very clear its goal is to "diminish same-sex attractions and overcome homosexual behavior," which is completely different from changing orientation. It does however provide links to a variety of resources, including those mentioned by Fireplace. However, Just the Facts is only talking about the promotion of reparative therapy among young people. Evergreen does not do that at all. They don't even advocate reparative therapy.Joshuajohanson 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be simpler to write that Evergreen does not presently advocate reparative therapy, and just include a section relating Evergreen's history of reparative therapy. Such an article would contain first-hand accounts of induced vomiting as a form of 'aversion therapy', (severe genital damage from) electric shock 'aversion therapy', clinical dehumanization etc. In that way, it would be possible to maintain Evergreen's stance that it does not presently advocate reparative therapy, and at the same time record actual examples of reparative therapy carried out by actual evergreen employees in the past.222.2.90.77 (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in a tone that seems to agree that Evergreen's claims and approaches are correct. It also shows the bias of a currently practicing member of the LDS church in terms of vocabulary. This is something a lot of Mormon articles suffer from. Example: use of "the Church," instead of "the LDS church." There are many, many sects of Mormonism and many churches in general. It's a very Mormon-specific language style to say "the Church" but this does not effectively address a larger readership.

For better neutrality, phrases like, "Evergreen says that people can be successful at diminishing . . ." should be rewritten "Evergreen claims that . . ." and so on. In general, the article reads like a pamphlet used to convince a potential client to join up. The introduction area should contain basic facts, not alleged proof of effectiveness. Also, considering that the evidences offered here for Evergreen's success rate are based on a handful of verbal interviews, a section on controversy or incidences of failure would be helpful to present a more complete picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.220.241 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim is not a neutral word. (See Wikipedia:Words to avoid) The phrase "the church" typically refers to the last church referenced. The full name of the church is spelled out beforehand, and all other subsequent referents refer to the full name of the church. This custom is not specific to the LDS church, for example, see Catholic Church.

The Therapy section criticizes organizations that try to change sexual orientation. While I don't think this criticism is unwarranted, I think it's inappropriate for this article specifically. There are many organizations that try to do what Evergreen attempts. Shouldn't this criticism be located there and then this article link to it? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evergreen International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://desertstream.org/recommend-friends/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504130831/http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=1 to http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]