KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) shorten archivebot delay, this page is getting swamped |
→Replies to born Gay: new section |
||
Line 821: | Line 821: | ||
===references=== |
===references=== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
== Replies to born Gay == |
|||
Please use this page - we all have to see the different threads to understand what is going on. |
|||
Please stop trying to control what I add or not. If its notable, sourced and shows due weight then leave it. No one owns the article. Some description of what Conversion therapists think they are doing is necessary. The quote should come form their own mouths, but I have sourced something from an APA official (reported by NARTH) to satisfy the most stringent demands, or at least I thought I had! |
|||
Have you read my comment on AR? Sources are not perfect, need to fulfil their own agenda and often fail to be comprehensive. There is something here that needs to find its place. There is no shortage of paper, and if we need to we can include everything by spinning off new pages. |
|||
You are defining the page as being about conversion therapy but not SOCE, when one is a description of the other. You have no right to control the definition of the page in a strict way of your own making. Wikipedia is about the wisdom of crowds, not experts who split hairs. Edit on scholarpedia if that is what you want. [[User:Hyper3|Hyper3]] ([[User talk:Hyper3|talk]]) 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:20, 11 September 2009
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Conversion therapy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Consensus
I am both surprised and disappointed that there has been no proper discussion here since the article was protected. My proposal is that the article should be reverted back to the version of 08:10, 8 August 2009. The changes made by Destinero to the lead here [2] were not necessary or an improvement, and the revert by Whatever404 that followed undid much helpful editing, including not only the correction of a major factual error in the lead by Destinero but an important template fix by Guy M [3]. If nobody can be bothered discussing on the talk page, then I am simply going to assume that nobody objects to my proposal, and will go ahead and do the revert when protection expires. Born Gay (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would like the most recent findings from the APA to be included on this page - including that psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity, that there is no evidence whether or not recent efforts to change sexual orientation are effective, there is no harm in rejecting a gay identity, therapists need to be aware of person's religious identity, and that the religious identity might be stronger than other identities, and that ex-gay groups are beneficial. I am more concerned with other articles right now, and I completely concur that the findings did not validate conversion therapy, but instead offered an alternative approach to dealing with ego-dystonic homosexuality. I am more interested in resolving the debate on the ego-dystonic sexual orientation page and the homosexuality and psychology page before trying to apply the changes here, since there are still many aspects of conversion therapy that I cannot defend. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The evidence shows that trying to change sexual orientation is ineffective. Nothing in the article is in error as it stands, because the APA confirmed everything in their 1997 statement in the 2009 statement. All that is needed is to see what they have said that supplements the 1997 statement, and insert it, and update citations as relevant. There is no urgency in that, and the proposed changes should be worked on here first, by developing a draft for insertion, which once agreed upon can then be inserted. Mish (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No. The new APA statement says "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." That is COMPLETELY different from saying that evidence shows it is ineffective. According to the APA report, evidence doesn't show one way or the other. It does say conversion therapy is ineffective, and I am fine saying conversion therapy is ineffective, but to extend that to other methods is inaccurate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The disagreement here does not seem to be over whether the new APA report is important or if its findings should be included; there seems to be agreement that it is and that they should be. Rather, it's about how the article should be updated. If Joshuajohanson feels that the report supports the various claims he made (eg, that "psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity", and so on), then it is up to him to justify those claims by citing the relevant parts of the report. Then he can propose a way of revising the article on the talk page, and it can be changed if there is a consensus. As Mish said, this process does not have to be rushed. It should be done in a careful way, with time for proper discussion of the proposed changes. The results of changing the article without discussion have been less than satisfactory; the additions made to the lead were unnecessary and those to the American medical consensus section only confused matters. Born Gay (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do feel the report supports the claim that "psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity". I got that from "sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation, appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, or life events" on page 86 and from "Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi et al., 2000)." on page 120.
- I am not sure if Joshuajohanson is saying that conversion therapy and SOCE are two different things or not. It certainly doesn't seem to me that the APA distinguishes them, and the suggestion that they are different looks like original research. Born Gay (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The APA defines conversion therapy to be psychotherapy which is based off the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder, whereas SOCE involves any effort to change sexual orientation, including, but not limited to conversion therapy, and regardless of the reasoning behind it. SOCE can include ex-gay groups, religious organizations and other non-professional methods. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The APA says that there are no studies that show whether recent SOCE work or not - because of the poor quality of research - fine, but that has to be understood on the back of all the good quality research that demonstrated that changing sexual orientation did not work. In other words, there is no evidence to show that it works (this was established prior to 1997, and that has not been superceded), and there is no evidence that anything that has developed since works or not. That means there is still no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, and the only evidence there is is that it cannot be changed. Mish (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right. I think that should be explained here. Maybe this summary would work - "Older methods were ineffective at changing sexual orientation and there is not enough evidence to conclude whether or not current methods change sexual orientation. However, sexual orientation identity can be changed through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." I think what is most important are the current methods. It's not like anyone is going to go back to the 1990's to try to get that brand of conversion therapy. A lot has happened since then, and the newer stuff needs to be reflected here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The APA says that there are no studies that show whether recent SOCE work or not - because of the poor quality of research - fine, but that has to be understood on the back of all the good quality research that demonstrated that changing sexual orientation did not work. In other words, there is no evidence to show that it works (this was established prior to 1997, and that has not been superceded), and there is no evidence that anything that has developed since works or not. That means there is still no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, and the only evidence there is is that it cannot be changed. Mish (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The APA defines conversion therapy to be psychotherapy which is based off the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder, whereas SOCE involves any effort to change sexual orientation, including, but not limited to conversion therapy, and regardless of the reasoning behind it. SOCE can include ex-gay groups, religious organizations and other non-professional methods. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The disagreement here does not seem to be over whether the new APA report is important or if its findings should be included; there seems to be agreement that it is and that they should be. Rather, it's about how the article should be updated. If Joshuajohanson feels that the report supports the various claims he made (eg, that "psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity", and so on), then it is up to him to justify those claims by citing the relevant parts of the report. Then he can propose a way of revising the article on the talk page, and it can be changed if there is a consensus. As Mish said, this process does not have to be rushed. It should be done in a careful way, with time for proper discussion of the proposed changes. The results of changing the article without discussion have been less than satisfactory; the additions made to the lead were unnecessary and those to the American medical consensus section only confused matters. Born Gay (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No. The new APA statement says "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." That is COMPLETELY different from saying that evidence shows it is ineffective. According to the APA report, evidence doesn't show one way or the other. It does say conversion therapy is ineffective, and I am fine saying conversion therapy is ineffective, but to extend that to other methods is inaccurate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The evidence shows that trying to change sexual orientation is ineffective. Nothing in the article is in error as it stands, because the APA confirmed everything in their 1997 statement in the 2009 statement. All that is needed is to see what they have said that supplements the 1997 statement, and insert it, and update citations as relevant. There is no urgency in that, and the proposed changes should be worked on here first, by developing a draft for insertion, which once agreed upon can then be inserted. Mish (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am still considering this issue and will have more to say later. For now, I'll simply note that Joshuajohanson is wrong about the report identifying conversion therapy as one type of SOCE. The main body of the report does not use the term "conversion therapy" (it's present only in the references) or say anything specific about how conversion therapy does or does not differ from SOCE. This might seem to be a pedantic point, but we have to keep it in mind if we want to avoid any original research analysis of this source. Born Gay (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting to see if anyone has a reason why we can't include this information. You are right, the report doesn't use the term conversion therapy, so you can't say that SOCE and conversion therapy is the same thing either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is rather an old discussion, and I'm not sure which information you're talking about. If you're referring to the additions you wanted to make to the lead, I still consider them undue and unsuitable, per WP:LEAD. They don't belong in a short summary, because they aren't one of the article's main points. There have been many reports on and statements about attempted methods of changing homosexuality, and the new APA statement is only one of them. Born Gay (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll repeat it:
- "I would like the most recent findings from the APA to be included on this page - including that psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity, that there is no evidence whether or not recent efforts to change sexual orientation are effective, there is no harm in rejecting a gay identity, therapists need to be aware of person's religious identity, and that the religious identity might be stronger than other identities, and that ex-gay groups are beneficial."
- You said "I am still considering this issue and will have more to say later." You ask that I bring up things on the talk page before adding them, but then you do nothing. Saying you are "still considering this issue" makes it sound as if you own this article. I think it should include the new information from the most recent APA report. I added it, you removed it, asking me to discuss it first. I discussed it, you are still considering it. Until it is added back in, this article is POV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously the most recent findings from the APA should be included. The issue is how best to do that. This is an extremely recent document, the implications of which I am still considering (and I do have things to do with my time besides edit, you know). I am not implying that I own the article, and your accusation that I am shows a failure to show good faith; see WP:AGF. I don't believe that anything in this report needs to be added to the lead, where it is would be undue, especially as this is an article about conversion therapy, not SOCE. Born Gay (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll repeat it:
- This is rather an old discussion, and I'm not sure which information you're talking about. If you're referring to the additions you wanted to make to the lead, I still consider them undue and unsuitable, per WP:LEAD. They don't belong in a short summary, because they aren't one of the article's main points. There have been many reports on and statements about attempted methods of changing homosexuality, and the new APA statement is only one of them. Born Gay (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Freud and Dorner
There seems to be a new content dispute, this time over the material on Sigmund Freud and Gunter Dorner. The way to determine what is appropriate content for the article is to look at what the reliable sources say about conversion therapy. There are plenty of sources that indicate that Freud was an enormous influence on the development of conversion therapy, and so the material on him is certainly relevant and should stay here. That includes Freud's attempts at treating his lesbian patient, which have been specifically described (by Jack Drescher, in a reliable source) as a form of reparative therapy. Gunter Dorner is an entirely different story; there isn't even a single source that describes what he did as conversion therapy, so really it has no relevance at all and should be removed. In the interests of full disclosure, I was the one who added the Dorner material in the first place, but that seems like a mistake to me now. Born Gay (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Freud has a child article which was correctly linked until you edited it out twice (while bizarrely enough accusing me of edit warring!). The bulk of the content belongs in Freud's article and not here. I am open to discussion on Dorner; I note he does not have a child article, so any content deemed notable and appropriate must be in this article. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The material on Freud does belong here. That's because this is an article about conversion therapy (also called reparative therapy), and multiple sources establish that Freud was an enormous influence on conversion therapy. Freud has also been described by reliable sources as practicing reparative therapy, so how is it not relevant?
- As for Dorner, there is no reason why the content about what he did "must" be here, since there's not even one source to show that it is conversion therapy or has anything to do with conversion therapy. Regarding edit warring, I was not trying to accuse you of this - simply observing that as an administrator, and one who recently protected the article due to content disputes, it would be bad form to start doing multiple reverts. I shouldn't be doing it either, of course, but then ADM's changes, which started the latest round of reverts, ought to have been discussed first. Born Gay (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have, alas, failed to respond to anything I've said in any helpful or productvie way. You say Freud was important and should be included; no argument. However, how much should be included? And there is no question that there should be a link to the main article. When there are child articiles, a brief summary is placed here, then a main template is placed with the summary. You have removed the template, and greatly expanded the content, creating dup0lication and going against standard practice.
- Regarding Dorner, I stated that "any content deemed notable and appropriate must be in this article"; I most certainly did not say anything he did "must be here" as you erroneously claim. Igf its not notable or pertinent, then by all means eliminate it.
- REgarding your "edit warring" comment: you were rude and the warning was inappropriate. Do you often walk up to newlyweds and tell them not to screw around on each other? No? Then by all means, reconsider warning people to not do something they've shown no sign of doing. It s ironic that you were edit warring yourself when you made the comment! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Look, this discussion seems to have got off on the wrong foot. I am sorry if you find my comments rude, I honestly didn't intend them that way. I'm afraid, however, that, from my perspective, it is you who has failed to respond to my points. Plenty of reliable sources indicate that Freud's work is relevant to or forms part of conversion therapy. That establishes that the content is appropriate, and that's the important point. ADM discussed nothing before cutting out a crucially relevant part of the article, which is necessary to readers to understand later developments in conversion therapy and can most usefully be included here. Turning it into a different article wasn't a good idea at all, not if that is the only content it is going to include (it makes no sense to appeal to the existence of a child article if it is not clear that the article should exist, which I'm still not sure about). The Dorner material is all totally irrelevant, as there aren't any sources that indicate a connection with converison therapy. You might have considered that before deciding to readd it. Born Gay (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- You say that, "When there are child articiles, a brief summary is placed here". If someone (I don't necessarily mean anyone in particular) were really determined to follow that approach, then probably every section of this article could be spun off into a different article, and this article would then be reduced to nothing but a shell, consisting of a handful of brief summaries. Does that really seem like a good idea? Born Gay (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that because Freud didn't hold much confidence in changing sexual orientation, but because of his significance, a separate article on his views on homosexuality makes sense, with a summary here that points out he looked at the matter, but considered it pointless, and linking to the main article. What we have here is too much of his views on homosexuality, which is of limited relevance to the topic as a whole. Mish (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Freud's lack of confidence in changing sexual orientation concerned mainly his awareness of the limitations of psychoanalysis, which he regarded as poorly suited to this task. He seems in fact to have been quite certain that homosexuality could be changed through hypnosis, and he was optimistic about the possibilities of changing homosexuality through surgery (an optimism that was quite misplaced, as it turned out). The issue is in any case not necessarily relevant, since the sources show that Freud was a crucial influence on conversion therapy, regardless of his scepticism about psychoanalysis as a change method. A separate article on Freud's views about homosexuality may nevertheless be justified, but if so what content should be here and what should be there needs to be carefully discussed here first; it shouldn't just be thrown from one article to another without talking about it first. You're right that not all of the material in the Freud section here is directly relevant, but it is helpful background material nonetheless. Similar material is included about many subsequent figures, and it really will not do to remove it without discussion. Born Gay (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the Freud section could be cut back somewhat, and I am not necessarily opposed to that (I have cut it back myself, several times already). But look at the material ADM cut out [4]. Most of it wasn't material that might better be in different articles - it was directly relevant here, since it concerned things that Freud actually did that have been described as conversion/reparative therapy, including his attempt to treat a lesbian patient. ADM may be right that some material can go, but it should hardly have been that material. The recent bout of edit warring could have been avoided entirely if he had simply discussed his concerns on the talk page. Born Gay (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that because Freud didn't hold much confidence in changing sexual orientation, but because of his significance, a separate article on his views on homosexuality makes sense, with a summary here that points out he looked at the matter, but considered it pointless, and linking to the main article. What we have here is too much of his views on homosexuality, which is of limited relevance to the topic as a whole. Mish (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Revising Freud section
In response to some of the comments here, I'm going to try to cut the Freud section back into something more reasonable and on-topic. I am working on a revised version in my sandbox. When I have something that I think is good enough to go in the article, I will comment here, and make the edit if there is agreement. In the meanwhile, I would appreciate it if ADM's version of that section not be restored, since his approach to cutting it back was less than careful and removed much appropriate material. Born Gay (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to draw on the sandbox edit I started a while back, if it helps. User:MishMich/CV history Mish (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the version in my sandbox at the moment [5] should be basically OK, and would like other editors' views on this. That version is much shorter than the current version, and every word of it is strictly on-topic. I think it might be helpful to add a couple more sources, though, so I would like to leave this one or two more days before making the change. Born Gay (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Patients' reasons for wanting to become heterosexual were often superficial, including fear of social disapproval". This could be re-worded. I understand what it means, but people's fear of social disapproval is not superficial in itself. Mish (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- What rewording do you suggest? It's meant to be a summary of Freud's views on this subject, remember - we're trying to say here what Freud thought rather than what we would consider true. Born Gay (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The 'superficial' part is not my interpretation, by the way, it is what is stated by the source used, in this case Lewes's book. This is Lewes discussing Freud's view of why attempts at changing homosexuality failed, on page 34: "Part of the reason for this lack of success, he thought, had to do with the superficiality of motivation on the part of the patient to be cured." Lewes then quotes Freud saying "The homosexual is not able to give up the object of his pleasure, and one cannot convince him that if he changed to the other object he would find again the pleasure that he has renounced", and then quotes Freud again on his view that most homosexuals appear for treament because of "external motives, such as social disadvantages and danger attaching to the choice of object". Born Gay (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- What rewording do you suggest? It's meant to be a summary of Freud's views on this subject, remember - we're trying to say here what Freud thought rather than what we would consider true. Born Gay (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Patients' reasons for wanting to become heterosexual were often superficial, including fear of social disapproval". This could be re-worded. I understand what it means, but people's fear of social disapproval is not superficial in itself. Mish (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the version in my sandbox at the moment [5] should be basically OK, and would like other editors' views on this. That version is much shorter than the current version, and every word of it is strictly on-topic. I think it might be helpful to add a couple more sources, though, so I would like to leave this one or two more days before making the change. Born Gay (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Changes to the lead
Hyper3, the changes you want to make to the lead are not backed up by the sources you used. The first one [6] does not say anything about the definition of conversion therapy, or how opponents in particular define it, and the second one [7] does not even use the term "conversion therapy", and is therefore irrelevant. Born Gay (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3's latest revert [8] violates the three revert rule, WP:3RR, and this is a blockable offense. I have warned this user of this. Born Gay (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Looking again, I am not sure that this is a violation of 3RR. It is however blatant edit warring, and the effect of it has been to introduce material into the article that is clearly not supported by the sources used. Born Gay (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The previous definition has no sources, mine at least has something. The sources do not need to say anything about the definition of conversion therapy; all they need to do is define it in the course of making a summary of their position. NARTH will of course not use the term "conversion therapy." In the footnote to the phrase quoted, they show their unhappiness in referring to gays and lesbians, believing that it begs the question. The examiner clearly uses the commonly phrased reference to gays and lesbians. Both sources are valid.
- As for edit warring, I have been responding to your critique; you have been reverting out of hand without attempting to improve with further edits.
- The definition needs to reflect the debate to be more inclusive. Otherwise, the entry will misinform and not be neutral. Hyper3 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are wrong in thinking that what you changed was a "definition" of conversion therapy. It was an explanation of what conversion therapy involves, and that's not the same thing. It was sourced. And yes, definitions of conversion therapy do have be based on sources that define conversion therapy, otherwise that's an original research analysis of a source, something which is totally unacceptable, not "valid". NARTH's not using the term "conversion therapy" isn't an excuse for you to use something that does not use the term "conversion therapy" to define conversion therapy. Your comments on edit warring suggest you may have misunderstood the policy. Your behaviour does qualify. Born Gay (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since you made a reference to 'being bold' in your edit summary, note that WP:WAR states, "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking." I had objected strongly when you made that change to the lead, and reverted you, so what you did was edit warring, not being bold. Born Gay (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you objected, I improved my edit - this is not edit warring. Your continual reversion without discussion is edit warring. Hyper3 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Born Gay
- I'm a bit bored of this. Let's forget about who was edit warring and deal with the problem in hand! Hyper3 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS a bit later here in the UK - I'm going to bed, but will take this up with you again soon!Hyper3 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:WAR, which you seem to have misunderstood. If another editor objects to your changes and reverts them, then making the edit over and over again is edit warring in all except a small number of circumstances, none of which apply here. It doesn't make any difference whether you make the edit in a slightly different way after the first few reverts. Regarding the content issue, you misused sources to support statements that they did not, in fact, support, which was inappropriate original research, and will I'm sure be eventually reverted either by me or by another editor. Born Gay (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The warring is over. The discussion begins.
- You make the claim that a definition must be constructed from a source that self-identifies as a definition; yet you yourself say that there are very few sources that do this. Show me where this is made explicit in wikipedia. Making the judgement as to what is relevant is not in itself OR. Both sources are clearly relevant. the problem is that, in the context of the debate, those who believe in addressing feelings of unwanted same sex attraction do not want to call the person experiencing the feelings gay or lesbian; to do so (for them) is to beg the question. See the footnote in the NARTH article. the fairest way of dealing with this is by citing the definition from both sides, otherwise the article starts off biased. Hyper3 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not consider it my responsibility to inform you about Wikipedia policy. You are free to look it up for yourself. What you have added to the lead is original research and needs to be removed. I'm not interested in the issue you mention, as it changes nothing where policy is concerned. We base things on reliable sources here, not personal opinion. Born Gay (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll note that the recent edit by Whatever404, which makes the article state that opponents define conversion therapy "as methods intended to convert bisexual, lesbian, and gay people to heterosexuality", worsens the original research problem. I accept that the edit was well-intentioned, but the source being used does not mention bisexuals (or lesbians either, for that matter). I think it's probably simpler for the article to say that conversion therapy tries to change same-sex attracted people, without mentioning all the different groups and sub-groups that this category might possibly cover.
- And to explain things a little more clearly to Hyper3: there's no need for me to show that the no original research policy specifically covers definitions, because it's a general rule that forbids adding content to articles that is not properly backed up by sources, which is what you did. I think you will find that trying to argue around policy is a pointless endeavour, as it's clear enough. Born Gay (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Point of policy - nothing is forbidden here, unlike WP:BLP. Policies and guidelines are what they say, are not absolute, they direct and guide, but are not to be followed blindly - they are not rules or laws. Consensus is not negotiable (but what constitutes consensus is open to discussion). Mish (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- What you say is in principle true, but it also doesn't resolve the issue at hand. There is a policy against original research, and it shouldn't be casually violated. I see that Destinero has reverted Hyper3 [9], and quite rightly, too. I'd urge Hyper3 not to make any more reverts in the absence of agreement for the changes he made. Born Gay (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let's look at OR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I have quoted a reliable source that directly relates to the topic. You are still suggesting that my edit was OR. Please help me understand what you are talking about, as I plan to reintroduce a definition that is not so blatantly POV. Hyper3 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you quoted reliable sources that directly related to the topic of the article. They did not, however, directly support the information as it was presented, so it was original research. You again seem to be suggesting that the first sentences of the lead are a "POV" definition of conversion therapy. They are neither a definition of conversion therapy, nor are they POV. They are an explanation of the most important aspect of conversion therapy, and are based directly on reliable sources. Born Gay (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so I look at a source, and quote it word for word, footnote where I got it from, and you say that the quote does not support the information as it was presented, and that it was WP:OR. Perhaps you will forgive me, but I clearly do not understand what the problem is here. Am I being dense? Can anyone else help me get this? Hyper3 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you quoted reliable sources that directly related to the topic of the article. They did not, however, directly support the information as it was presented, so it was original research. You again seem to be suggesting that the first sentences of the lead are a "POV" definition of conversion therapy. They are neither a definition of conversion therapy, nor are they POV. They are an explanation of the most important aspect of conversion therapy, and are based directly on reliable sources. Born Gay (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let's look at OR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I have quoted a reliable source that directly relates to the topic. You are still suggesting that my edit was OR. Please help me understand what you are talking about, as I plan to reintroduce a definition that is not so blatantly POV. Hyper3 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- What you say is in principle true, but it also doesn't resolve the issue at hand. There is a policy against original research, and it shouldn't be casually violated. I see that Destinero has reverted Hyper3 [9], and quite rightly, too. I'd urge Hyper3 not to make any more reverts in the absence of agreement for the changes he made. Born Gay (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Point of policy - nothing is forbidden here, unlike WP:BLP. Policies and guidelines are what they say, are not absolute, they direct and guide, but are not to be followed blindly - they are not rules or laws. Consensus is not negotiable (but what constitutes consensus is open to discussion). Mish (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:WAR, which you seem to have misunderstood. If another editor objects to your changes and reverts them, then making the edit over and over again is edit warring in all except a small number of circumstances, none of which apply here. It doesn't make any difference whether you make the edit in a slightly different way after the first few reverts. Regarding the content issue, you misused sources to support statements that they did not, in fact, support, which was inappropriate original research, and will I'm sure be eventually reverted either by me or by another editor. Born Gay (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you objected, I improved my edit - this is not edit warring. Your continual reversion without discussion is edit warring. Hyper3 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since you made a reference to 'being bold' in your edit summary, note that WP:WAR states, "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking." I had objected strongly when you made that change to the lead, and reverted you, so what you did was edit warring, not being bold. Born Gay (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Lead
The lead currently says:
“ | Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, involves methods intended to convert bisexual, lesbian and gay people to heterosexuality. | ” |
I believe that this fails to communicate the sense of reparative therapy that such therapists (herafter RTs) could recognise. Surely this controversial topic should recognise what RTs think they are doing, even if for the sake of neutrality, what others think is reflected also. I have found a relevant quotation that sums up, what RTs think they are doing: "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions." In the literature it is common for RTs to avoid using the terms "gay" and "lesbian" although they may use the word "homosexual." This is because they are trying to distinguish sexual activity from sexual identity. Indeed, the language of "conversion" is also missing. However misguided anyone may perceive this, in order to understand the RT, opponents must be generous enough to allow the RT voice to be heard. I would humbly suggest that this offers opponents the chance to refute the RT case more appropriately, as hearing people clearly allows for a rebuttal to be formulated more accurately. In other words, it is in no one's interest to silence opposing voices, indeed the amplification of difference leads to more constructive interaction. Any response? Hyper3 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- What reparative therapists may happen to think is irrelevant if their views have not been presented in reliable published sources. So far as I know, there are no reliable sources that provide a definition of conversion therapy from a pro-reparative therapy viewpoint. The quotation you offer is not a definition of conversion or reparative therapy, and should not be presented as one. Born Gay (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've fully support Bor Gay position in this case, even if we had different views on other issues in the past, since I am convinced such position is compatible with Wikipedia policies ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. + Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research."). It's simple. No discussions about that. --Destinero (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Is NARTH a reliable source?
Here is my source: http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality(Summary). My quotation is from line 2. Please say why this is not a reliable source. (And thanks for helping me work this through). Hyper3 (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, it's not a reliable source because NARTH is a fringe group. Reliable sources represent the mainstream views about topics, not fringe views. Secondly, even if were a reliable source, it wouldn't be relevant because it is not concerned with trying to define conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE does not support your standpoint, where, for example Creation Science is not considered fringe. It is worth bearing in mind that the article is about a theory which NARTH and Nicolosi are significant proponents. Therefore I do not think that this quotation could be excluded under the terms of WP:FRINGE. It would be like ignoring major proponents of Creation Science in the Creation Science article. Indeed Joseph Nicolosi coined the term reparative therapy, and has his own wikipedia page.On this page, something like my proposed sentence currently exists without controversy. Hyper3 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE does not say that Creation Science is not fringe, and it would be irrelevant if it did, as the issue here is NARTH, which holds views (eg, that homosexuality is a mental disorder) that are clearly outside the scientific mainstream. In any case, the quotation is not a definition of conversion therapy, and should not be presented as one. Born Gay (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, WP:FRINGE does refer to creation science.
- WP:FRINGE does not say that Creation Science is not fringe, and it would be irrelevant if it did, as the issue here is NARTH, which holds views (eg, that homosexuality is a mental disorder) that are clearly outside the scientific mainstream. In any case, the quotation is not a definition of conversion therapy, and should not be presented as one. Born Gay (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE does not support your standpoint, where, for example Creation Science is not considered fringe. It is worth bearing in mind that the article is about a theory which NARTH and Nicolosi are significant proponents. Therefore I do not think that this quotation could be excluded under the terms of WP:FRINGE. It would be like ignoring major proponents of Creation Science in the Creation Science article. Indeed Joseph Nicolosi coined the term reparative therapy, and has his own wikipedia page.On this page, something like my proposed sentence currently exists without controversy. Hyper3 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects. | ” |
- The way WP:FRINGE operates should not exclude a minority view like those of NARTH. In fact, an article whose subject matter is the examination of a minority view, is the very place that such views should be discussed, and WP:FRINGE is clear about that. The inclusion of the views of adherents to minority views should not be excluded.
- I would argue that the common acceptance of views like NARTH amongst the global Pentecostal Evangelical and Charismatic community (making up as much as 10% of the world's population) means that this is far from a fringe view, although it may not be accurate. The scientific research done by NARTH members is commonly referred to (albeit often disparagingly) by the dominant scientific community when engaging with the subject of reparative therapy. There's no real way to avoid this, and the article needs to admit such sources, because the standard is not truth, but verifiability. Hyper3 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH's views are already mentioned in the article. The lead can have up to four paragraphs, and as the current version only has three, an additional paragraph could be added, but there's no special reason why that particular quote from NARTH should be part of it, since it does not represent one of the main points in the article. Born Gay (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH isn't fringe. If it were fringe, why would the APA publish the work of NARTH members? [10][11] Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Publishing the work of someone who happens to be a member of a given organization is not an endorsement of the views of that organization itself. Born Gay (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Joshuajohanson is not making the point that the APA agrees with NARTH, just that NARTH are part of the mainstream conversation, and therefore not fringe. Well put. Hyper3 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the APA publishes publishes something by someone who happens to be a NARTH member does not mean that NARTH itself is part of any conversation. Born Gay (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- True, but you haven't provided any evidence that it is a fringe group either. I don't see how you can make that claim. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH is well known for holding a position - that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder - that all mainstream medical and scientific groups in the United States have strongly repudiated. Trying to claim that NARTH is not fringe or is a reliable source really is a waste of time. Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like, but it should already be clear what the outcome of that will be. Born Gay (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- To Hyper3: yes, WP:FRINGE does refer to Creation Science (I never said it didn't). But note that it does not say that Creation Science is not fringe anywhere in the quote from it you offered, and that the issue is irrelevant, as this is an article on a different topic. Born Gay (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where does NARTH say that? I'm looking at the position statements, and I'm not seeing that. [12] It does say "But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable." It argues that there is a lack of evidence to say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It does not officially believe that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder, as you claim. The position statement says it believes that it has biological influences. There are members who believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, and NARTH will publish some of their views, but it also publishes other view points. You still haven't convinced me that NARTH is a fringe group. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- They're called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. One doesn't advocate "therapy" for things that are not diseases or disoders. See this [13], which argues that it was a mistake to remove homosexuality from the DSM. They may not openly hold that as an official position, but that's what they're suggesting nonetheless, and whether they think that biology plays some role is not germane to the issue. Born Gay (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like synthesis. They complain that it was removed because of advocacy, and argue that shouldn't be a reason to change the DSM. No where did they say it is a disease.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH promotes therapies that are rejected by all mainstream medical and scientific bodies in the United States as potentially harmful and based on discredited theories. This means that NARTH is not a reliable source - along with the fact that there has never been any reason to think it is a reliable source. Try raising the issue on the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree, but I'm sure what the outcome will be. Born Gay (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- What seems to be forgotten, is that when the topic of the article is what people like NARTH say, NARTH is a reliable source; even if they espoused fringe views (which they do not, they espouse a minority view.) It is pov to assert that NARTH statements cannot be heard in an article that requires the examination of their views. Hyper3 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Born Gay - I have taken your advice and put it on the reliable source noticeboard. Thanks for the idea. Hyper3 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- So far I have had two comments, both saying that NARTH is a reliable source for comments about itself and its views. This is all I have been asking for. Hyper3 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are wrong about the topic of this article. It is not "what people like NARTH say". It is conversion therapy, and that is a practice, not what "people like NARTH" say about that practice. I have never said that NARTH's views cannot be simply mentioned in the article, and have several times said in past discussions that they should be. I reject the notion that NARTH is necessarily a reliable source for "comments about itself"; this organization should not be allowed to dictate how it is presented. It may be used as a source for what its own stated views are, but that has never been in question. Born Gay (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have left a comment at the discussion you referred to. Most of the comments there supported NARTH being used as a source for its own views (which, again, has never been in question) but not necessarily for "comments about itself" in general. I think you are misinterpreting the comments there if you think that there is agreement in favour of NARTH being allowed to control how it is portrayed in general. Born Gay (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that I am arguing for the use of NARTH based material at all, and so am heartened by this turn of events. In other words, if I use something sourced from NARTH, if it is an appropriate comment about NARTH or its views, it cannot be removed for WP:FRINGE. I understand that other comments can be made, and that it must be put in context according to WP:UNDUE. It is not susceptible to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Hyper3 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- So far I have had two comments, both saying that NARTH is a reliable source for comments about itself and its views. This is all I have been asking for. Hyper3 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Born Gay - I have taken your advice and put it on the reliable source noticeboard. Thanks for the idea. Hyper3 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- What seems to be forgotten, is that when the topic of the article is what people like NARTH say, NARTH is a reliable source; even if they espoused fringe views (which they do not, they espouse a minority view.) It is pov to assert that NARTH statements cannot be heard in an article that requires the examination of their views. Hyper3 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH promotes therapies that are rejected by all mainstream medical and scientific bodies in the United States as potentially harmful and based on discredited theories. This means that NARTH is not a reliable source - along with the fact that there has never been any reason to think it is a reliable source. Try raising the issue on the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree, but I'm sure what the outcome will be. Born Gay (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like synthesis. They complain that it was removed because of advocacy, and argue that shouldn't be a reason to change the DSM. No where did they say it is a disease.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- They're called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. One doesn't advocate "therapy" for things that are not diseases or disoders. See this [13], which argues that it was a mistake to remove homosexuality from the DSM. They may not openly hold that as an official position, but that's what they're suggesting nonetheless, and whether they think that biology plays some role is not germane to the issue. Born Gay (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where does NARTH say that? I'm looking at the position statements, and I'm not seeing that. [12] It does say "But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable." It argues that there is a lack of evidence to say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It does not officially believe that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder, as you claim. The position statement says it believes that it has biological influences. There are members who believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, and NARTH will publish some of their views, but it also publishes other view points. You still haven't convinced me that NARTH is a fringe group. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- True, but you haven't provided any evidence that it is a fringe group either. I don't see how you can make that claim. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the APA publishes publishes something by someone who happens to be a NARTH member does not mean that NARTH itself is part of any conversation. Born Gay (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Joshuajohanson is not making the point that the APA agrees with NARTH, just that NARTH are part of the mainstream conversation, and therefore not fringe. Well put. Hyper3 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Publishing the work of someone who happens to be a member of a given organization is not an endorsement of the views of that organization itself. Born Gay (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH isn't fringe. If it were fringe, why would the APA publish the work of NARTH members? [10][11] Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- NARTH's views are already mentioned in the article. The lead can have up to four paragraphs, and as the current version only has three, an additional paragraph could be added, but there's no special reason why that particular quote from NARTH should be part of it, since it does not represent one of the main points in the article. Born Gay (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The Lead paragraph
According to WP:LEAD:
“ | The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. | ” |
Therefore a description of reparative therapy does not need to be a definition to be included in the Lead section. An appropriate, relevant, and referenced description is all that is required. As the article is about reparative therapy, failing to give a definition that matches with proponent's views (admittedly, in the context of the views of any opposition) would be misleading. Currently, this article needs such a description to achieve WP:NPOV. Hyper3 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have misunderstood the point of the statement you quoted from NARTH ("providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions"). It does not seem to be meant as either a definition or a description of any specific kind of therapy. Nor is it quite true that the article is about reparative therapy, since that has been defined both as a general term for attempts to convert people away from being gay and as a term for a specific kind of change therapy. Both of those points of view are acknowledged in the article, which as a whole is about reparative therapy only in the former sense. Born Gay (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the article is not about reparative therapy, why does the opening line quote it as a synonym? You seem to be suggesting that the article is not about reparative therapy; I would suggest that as the direct successor to conversion therapy, reparative therapy is very much relevant to the article.
- The quote accurately describes the motivation and the goals of reparative therapy, though we cannot know the intentions of the author. The lead is not the place to describe the actual nature of the therapy, though that does need including too, further down. The issue is that there is a clear divergence of opinion as to what reparative therapy is attempting to do, and this needs to be reflected in the article, and specifically in the lead, with a source close to the centre of those who currently offer such therapy. Hyper3 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reparative therapy is used in two different senses: A) as a synonym for conversion therapy in general (as the lead explains) and B) as the name for a particular kind of conversion therapy. The entire article is about reparative therapy in sense A) but only one small section of it (in Theories and Techniques) is about reparative therapy in sense B). The quote from NARTH isn't a description of the motives or the goals of reparative therapy in either sense - it doesn't even use the term "reparative therapy." Born Gay (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The quote doesn't need to use the term reparative therapy when it comes in a context that is clearly all about reparative therapy. The quote allows those whose view reflect the reparative therapy environment to speak in their own terms about what they think they are doing. They could not identify with the current version, and therefore the current version is defective. What is being added is a reference to the sense of distress, talking about feelings rather than orientation, and leaving out labels like gay and lesbian. These three things are important for reparative therapy to be adequately represented in this article. Hyper3 (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The context establishes no such thing. NARTH members would probably understand reparative therapy in the narrower sense of a specific kind of conversion therapy, and it's not at at all clear that that is what that document is discussing. The quote explains nothing about what reparative therapy might be or involve, and so is poorly chosen and quite unsuitable for the lead. That NARTH might not like the current version of the lead has nothing, by itself, to do with whether the lead is NPOV or not. Born Gay (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The quote doesn't need to use the term reparative therapy when it comes in a context that is clearly all about reparative therapy. The quote allows those whose view reflect the reparative therapy environment to speak in their own terms about what they think they are doing. They could not identify with the current version, and therefore the current version is defective. What is being added is a reference to the sense of distress, talking about feelings rather than orientation, and leaving out labels like gay and lesbian. These three things are important for reparative therapy to be adequately represented in this article. Hyper3 (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reparative therapy is used in two different senses: A) as a synonym for conversion therapy in general (as the lead explains) and B) as the name for a particular kind of conversion therapy. The entire article is about reparative therapy in sense A) but only one small section of it (in Theories and Techniques) is about reparative therapy in sense B). The quote from NARTH isn't a description of the motives or the goals of reparative therapy in either sense - it doesn't even use the term "reparative therapy." Born Gay (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindented) An older version has this under the Medical Consensus which I think is much more NPOV, though it doesn't include the most recent results from the task force[14]:
- The medical and mental health consensus in the United States is that there is "no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments",[1] but that there is anecdotal evidence for both harm and success.[5][2][6][7] All major U.S. mental health organizations have expressed concerns about such practices. The American Psychological Association states that "it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons."[2]
- The ethics guidelines of major U.S. mental health organizations vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association) to recommending that ethical practitioners refrain from using conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or referring patients to others who do (American Counseling Association). The organizations do, however, respect the client's right to self-determination. As a result of the medical view, conversion therapy is a largely marginalized practice.[3] Today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex.[8] Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see any obvious way in which the medical consensus section of that version of the article, which is very old, is superior to what is there now. I find that version to be poorly organized, and somewhat confusing. What does that have to do with the lead anyway? Born Gay (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Further help
Whereas initially, my edit was considered fringe, original research, and not backed up by sources, conversations since then have failed to establish that this is the case. I think an unbiased outsider would understand the clear case that conversion/reparative therapy is not being described in a way that sensitively portrays the approach that the many caring and patient-centred therapists who employ this therapy could recognise. I believe that this may be because of the a priori standpoints of other editors in this matter, and we should ask for outside help. The new objections that are emerging, centred around whether the article really is about what it says it is, I am not finding convincing either. I think we should get other opinions involved. They may be able to help .Hyper3 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors of bias is not a helpful way forward. What we personally think about this subject is not, or should not, be the issue. Personally, I'm against it. However, I also consider myself to be a reasonably neutral editor, and I try to base things on reliable sources and not on my personal views. Sometimes that takes an effort, and I find it becomes easier as time passes. I can understand your frustration that other editors may not agree with you, but please be willing to consider that they are disagreeing in good faith, based on concerns for WP:NPOV, and not out of some desire to push personal views. Born Gay (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality
The lead needs to describe what conversion/reparative therapists think they are doing. This does not need to exclude any mainstream opinions. An article about a minority viewpoint should clearly state what that minority viewpoint is. Wikipedia articles ought to show neutrality. —Hyper3 (via posting script) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The lead should not describe what conversion/reparative therapists think they are doing. That is firstly because their views on that are not necessarily different from those of opponents of conversion therapy (though they obviously evaluate it differently) and secondly because, to the extent that their views may differ (something that has not even been demonstrated) theirs would be a fringe view. This is not an article about a fringe view of conversion therapy, it's an article about conversion therapy itself, and it needs to reflect the mainstream view. Born Gay (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The edit that I have in mind is this:
“ | Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, is defined by opponents as methods intended to convert gay and lesbian people to heterosexuality,[1] and by adherents, as methods "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions."[2] | ” |
- I have found objections to this is far unconvincing (read the previous exchange for further information). I am not stuck on this edit, but feel that something needs to be added to help the reader understand what this is about from several points of view, especially as the article is about a particular minority approach. Hyper3 (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that what they think they are doing is correct - it would be what they say they think they are doing, and reliable sources suggest that what they say they think they are doing is misleading. The recent APA report says that what they say they think they are doing is not what is happening. They say they think they can change people from having homosexual attraction in way that minimise this, or even have heterosexual attraction. The APA has said quite categorically that there is no evidence to support claims like these. I don't see that people's delusions, even if they are experts, need a place in the lead of an article in which they only feature marginally. They feature marginally, because the therapy is seen as fringe by the mainstream psychological and psychiatric communities. The only people who take it seriously usually do so from a religious perspective, and the APA has also stated that religious interests have no expertise on these matters, and should stick to religion. It is a fringe theory, because very few practitioners in this area hold it as having any merit, and there is no evidence to support it. It is to psychtherapy what 'The Holy Blood the Holy Grail' is to religious history. Mish (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fully aware that the reason that this edit is opposed is that those who oppose it are committed to a different view. And I understand that each person is shaped within the community in which they live, and find it hard to see outside that environment, as I find it hard to see beyond my own thoughts and feelings and the community within which I live. The point here is not that the view is right, it is that it is verifiably sourced and relevant. The article on conversion therapy ought to be able to present what those committed to conversion therapy believe, whilst also presenting other viewpoints. There may be more people committed to sexual reorientation as a theory of sexuality than there are those who self-identify as gay or lesbian; neither positions can be called "fringe." I do not think that wikipedia is the place for censorship; it isn't even the place to discuss the relevant merits of the case; it is an encyclopaedia that categorises knowledge for the benefit of all. Some will use it to inform themselves better on what they believe; some will use it to inform themselves about what their opponents believe. It is about information not point of view. A neutral point of view will allow all views to be aired that are not fringe and with due weight. I am arguing for wikipedia policy, (which seems very fair to all in cases like this) not for a particular perspective. Hyper3 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing censored - both NARTH and Nicolosi have their own articles, and they are covered within the text of the article. In the lead, it is a question of weight. If the lead was full of LGBT views on this, you might have a point, but it hasn't. It has the position statements of organisations of the two APAs and other such professional associations. These are neutral views in their own right, and they are the professional position on this. There is no alternative view to this other than partisan views. Putting in partisan views creates its own problems, especially in the lead, because then those would need to be counterbalanced by other partisan views - groups like Stonewall (UK) or Pink Therapy. What you have at the moment is professional positions based on findings, not opinion,
opinionposition which clearly states that there is no evidential basis for certain opinions that people's sexual orientation can be changed. Mish (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing censored - both NARTH and Nicolosi have their own articles, and they are covered within the text of the article. In the lead, it is a question of weight. If the lead was full of LGBT views on this, you might have a point, but it hasn't. It has the position statements of organisations of the two APAs and other such professional associations. These are neutral views in their own right, and they are the professional position on this. There is no alternative view to this other than partisan views. Putting in partisan views creates its own problems, especially in the lead, because then those would need to be counterbalanced by other partisan views - groups like Stonewall (UK) or Pink Therapy. What you have at the moment is professional positions based on findings, not opinion,
- I'm fully aware that the reason that this edit is opposed is that those who oppose it are committed to a different view. And I understand that each person is shaped within the community in which they live, and find it hard to see outside that environment, as I find it hard to see beyond my own thoughts and feelings and the community within which I live. The point here is not that the view is right, it is that it is verifiably sourced and relevant. The article on conversion therapy ought to be able to present what those committed to conversion therapy believe, whilst also presenting other viewpoints. There may be more people committed to sexual reorientation as a theory of sexuality than there are those who self-identify as gay or lesbian; neither positions can be called "fringe." I do not think that wikipedia is the place for censorship; it isn't even the place to discuss the relevant merits of the case; it is an encyclopaedia that categorises knowledge for the benefit of all. Some will use it to inform themselves better on what they believe; some will use it to inform themselves about what their opponents believe. It is about information not point of view. A neutral point of view will allow all views to be aired that are not fringe and with due weight. I am arguing for wikipedia policy, (which seems very fair to all in cases like this) not for a particular perspective. Hyper3 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that what they think they are doing is correct - it would be what they say they think they are doing, and reliable sources suggest that what they say they think they are doing is misleading. The recent APA report says that what they say they think they are doing is not what is happening. They say they think they can change people from having homosexual attraction in way that minimise this, or even have heterosexual attraction. The APA has said quite categorically that there is no evidence to support claims like these. I don't see that people's delusions, even if they are experts, need a place in the lead of an article in which they only feature marginally. They feature marginally, because the therapy is seen as fringe by the mainstream psychological and psychiatric communities. The only people who take it seriously usually do so from a religious perspective, and the APA has also stated that religious interests have no expertise on these matters, and should stick to religion. It is a fringe theory, because very few practitioners in this area hold it as having any merit, and there is no evidence to support it. It is to psychtherapy what 'The Holy Blood the Holy Grail' is to religious history. Mish (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- MishMich - [1] the subject is reparative therapy; you are suggesting that to use the words of a reparative therapist to describe what they think reparative therapy is, involves giving undue weight. Think about it for a moment. Fair enough, if the article was different, say homosexuality or other LGBT focussed entries, you might have something, but the topic is reparative therapy.
- [2]You suggest that the lead isn't full of LGBT views, when in fact it makes a statement that is consonant with LGBT views, and misses out the idea that feelings of same sex attraction may be unwanted, and according to some, be susceptible to therapy. I understand why you might want to say that, but this is the whole point of the article...
- [3] All views are partisan if we conceive of views as products of their communities. Traditions of inquiry grow up around questions and problems, display explanatory power or not, grow and or die, extend themselves or contract. The question of same sex attraction is one that is answered in separate ways by different traditions; from a psychological/scientific standpoint by people like the APA, and from a psycho-spiritual standpoint by a number of different religious traditions. Their validity and rationality is dependant on the tradition in which they are found. The much younger tradition, which you are saying is neutral, stands in the context of a much older and still very extensive tradition, which disagrees with it. I don't believe you can call it neutral, though it may be valid and rational within its own context. The encyclopaedia project should gather this knowledge and present it well, not choose one version in the guise of neutrality.
- [4]Reparative therapy in the sense of it being the latest version of a long and tortured history of religious attempts to deal with the problem (often very badly in my opinion, but lets let that pass for now) is the subject of much of the article. Nicolosi is the best example of current proponents, and stands for the tradition of enquiry that a good proportion of the article documents (although he would no agree with a great deal of the material). It is therefore due a certain amount of weight, as are any others who wish to comment. I would not object to other LGBT views being represented in the lead. Actually its partisan views masquerading as neutral that is much harder to deal with. Hyper3 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but conversion therapy falls under psychiatry/psychology, and this is about that, not religious views on homosexuality - that is a different article and well dealt with already. Mish (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Conversion therapy deals with a specific type of therapy, which goal is to change sexual orientation. NARTH deals with "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions", which includes, but is not limited to attempts to change sexual orientation. Therefore, not everything that NARTH does can be construed as conversion therapy. I think it would be completely appropriate to talk about therapies related to conversion therapy, but don't specifically try to change the sexual orientation. I also think it is important to realize that regardless of what NARTH might advocate, they still have to follow the same guidelines as everyone else. I don't understand why it is considered a fringe group, if they are following APA guidelines. True, simply having a member publish in the APA is not evidence that NARTH is not a fringe group, but what evidence do you have that NARTH is a fringe group? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3, you say "I'm fully aware that the reason that this edit is opposed is that those who oppose it are committed to a different view." Please see the policy on assuming good faith - WP:AGF, which you are failing to observe here. The reason why I oppose your edit is because it is original research. The sources you provided do not back up the statements you want to add to the lead. Even if NARTH were a reliable source and even if it were giving a definition of conversion or reparative therapy (and neither of those things is true) it would still reflect only NARTH's view, not those of all supporters of conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi JJ, Hyper needs to brief you properly when lobbying your support in backing him up here. The only aspect of NARTH that is relevant is its role in promoting a form of therapy that all professional psych associations have made extensive and clear statements regarding its inappropriateness. That is covered in the article. If it has now changed its tune, so it does some other kind of therapy, then that is not relevant to the lead, although it might be relevant to the main text, in passing, provided you have a reliable source to show that it has changed its approach (in a way that is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR. "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" is not the same as "conversion therapy" - of it were, according to the APA, they would be risking challenges of professional misconduct, and they do not say that, do they? Mish (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
NPOV flag
This article is not NPOV. Here are some problems with the article:
- The WHO lists egodystonic sexual orientation under Psychological and behavioural disorders and does say that patients "may seek treatment in order to change it." This is mentioned in the article, but it is not mentioned in the lead and the main article gives too much weight to the American standpoint. India follows the WHO listing and practices conversion therapy. There is no reason to give America more weight than India.
- The American Psychiatric Association has stated: "anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm".[15] However, this article does not counterbalance the cures with the harm. This needs to be addressed.
- There are other benefits of conversion therapy. Here are some good studies to include: [16] [17]
- Almost every single statement has talked about the importance of self-determination. This needs to be addressed in the article.
- The American Psychological Association has stated "Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media."[18] This debate is ignored and it seems as if there is a consensus in the professional literature. There used to be a good discussion of the debate, but this was removed. [19] All of it was published by reliable sources.
- The APA stated "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events" I would like the article to mention this.
All of these things needed to be added. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct that the article does have POV problems, but in my view you haven't correctly identified any of them. The main POV problem here is the inclusion of undue material in the history section, something which I admit that I am partly responsible for, but which I intend to remedy by removing it. It's entirely appropriate that the WHO statement not be mentioned in the lead, as it is not one of the article's main points. The article does not give too much emphasis to the American viewpoint, since sources that deal with conversion therapy happen to focus mainly on the United States. Suggesting that the article should give India as much weight as America is silly. The exclusion of the quotations you mention from the American medical consensus section is not a problem either, since the purpose of it is to summarise the main views, not to offer quotations. Born Gay (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to change the article in any of the ways you suggest, then please propose changes on the talk page first and see if consensus for them can be reached. Proposed changes should be dealt with one by one, and each will be considered on its own merits, or lack of them. Adding a "neutrality disputed" flag to the article isn't a particularly helpful thing to do - views on this issue tend to be sharply polarized, and I suppose that no matter what the article says someone will always say that it isn't neutral. Adding the tag is not a responsible thing to do unless you can explain exactly what changes would satisfy you that the article was neutral, and I do not think it should stay just because one editor wants it. Born Gay (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- And since you make an issue of my removal of the debate within professional literature section, I will say that I stand by that and still consider removing it the correct decision. I have changed my mind about other issues, but not about this. The version of that section from the article version you linked to is mainly just a confusing mess of quotations, but I did not wipe all of that content, but preserved the parts that were most relevant and relocated them elsewhere in the article. Born Gay (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried to add things into this article to make it more neutral, but it gets reverted with the only explanation of being "let's discuss it", but then no actual discussion takes place. This article is FAR from NPOV. Hopefully with the NPOV tag in place, it will give motivation for editors to work together. The flag means neutrality is disputed, not that there is consensus that the article is not neutral. You ask me to "explain exactly what changes would satisfy you that the article was neutral." I have made a list. There are many things wrong with this article, so simply fulfilling that list won't be enough, but it is a start.
- One of the problems is that you don't like quotes and Destino doesn't like my summaries. Somehow that just ends meaning anything that either of you two don't like gets removed. I can't work with that. I am sick of it. I gave up on this article awhile back because of that problem. All you have to do to remove content you don't like is find one problem with it, whether it be you don't like the summary, it has too many quotes, it doesn't have enough quotes, or anything you want. Fine, edit it, don't remove it. I hope that the NPOV tag will encourage us to work together rather than separately. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you are referring to your additions to the lead, I removed them because I considered them unnecessary and unhelpful. I still do. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the main points of the article, and there is no way that the material you added could be considered that. It might well belong somewhere else, but not in the lead. The article does indeed have POV problems, but as I said, you don't seem to understand what they are, and nor have you shown any interest in discussing them. The NPOV tag is divisive and does absolutely nothing to improve the article. If you think that it is reasonable to add a neutrality disputed tag simply because one editor thinks the article is not neutral, then the result will be that this article will always have a neutrality disputed tag, because there is always going to be some editor who thinks it is not neutral, no matter what it says. I can't say what your intentions are, but to an external observer it almost might look as though you want to add the tag simply because you haven't got your way here and therefore want to spoil things by adding something that implies that the article is no good. Born Gay (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- To repeat some points: it is completely unreasonable to add the tag if you cannot or will not explain under what circumstances you would agree to have it removed. If it has any place at all, that could be only because there are specific problems that could be fixed by some defined, agreed-upon method, not because one editor has vague and incompletely explained concerns about an article that no one knows how to satisfy. I remain strongly opposed to the use of quotations where summaries are more appropriate, and note that you have done little to discuss what appropriate summaries would consist of. Born Gay (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Although it is only an essay, I would direct your attention to WP:NPOVD, which states, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Born Gay (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I listed 6 things at the top of this section. I will take the flag off when they are addressed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- What does that mean? That you will insist the tag remain unless your proposed changes (and in some cases you're rather vague about just what you think needs doing) are made? Suppose other editors form a consensus that your proposed changes are not appropriate or necessary - what then? Will you still insist that the tag remain even in the face of such a consensus? Would you consider it reasonable if other editors also behaved that way? Obviously, the article would have a "neutrality disputed" tag forever if other people behaved as you're proposing to do. Born Gay (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Joshuajohanson has correctly pointed out POV problems with the article and made several sourced suggestions on how it can be improved. Perhaps you can recommend were in the article his suggestions can be added? Or, even better, add them yourself since you seem concerned about his agenda?--Knulclunk (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I would not insist that the tag remain once a consensus is reached. I want the concerns to be addressed, not necessarily in my favor, but addressed. You have mentioned that you "stand by" the reason not include the information about the debate, but didn't give a reason for that. (You could point me to the discussion.) I concede that the WHO position might not deserve as much weight as the APA, but seeing how most of the world uses the WHO, I think it is reasonable to want something from them in the lead. I would also like something about self-determination in the lead. If you have no other objections, I will start adding the stuff on my list into the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- To repy to Knulclunk: Joshuajohanson is simply wrong in many of his claims. It is not a "POV problem" that the lead does not mention that "WHO lists egodystonic sexual orientation under Psychological and behavioural disorders and does say that patients 'may seek treatment in order to change it.'" This information is not one of the main points of the article, and it would be undue for the lead. It is also not a POV problem that America is given more weight than India here, that too is as it should be, as sources dealing with conversion therapy tend to focus on America, not India. Joshuajohanson's comment that "this article does not counterbalance the cures with the harm" appears to suggest that he wants the article to state that some people have been cured of homosexuality through conversion therapy, but stating that would create a POV problem, not solve one. The removal of the debate within professional literature section was appropriate, despite what Joshuajohanson suggests, since that section had no material in it that could not be more usefully placed in different sections, mainly the American medical consensus and Studies of converison therapy sections. Some of that material might perhaps be restored, but not the whole section. Joshuajohanson's remark that, "The APA stated 'sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events', I would like the article to mention this" suggests to me that he has misinterpreted the new APA report, which in my view does not say that conversion therapy can necessarily change sexual orientation identity. The issue should no doubt be mentioned, but we need to avoid misinterpreting what the APA actually says. However, if you think that Joshuajohanson is right on any of these points, then please explain why you think he is right. Simply asserting that he is right is not of any help by itself. Born Gay (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- To reply to Joshuajohanson: you say, "If you have no other objections, I will start adding the stuff on my list into the article." I object strongly to you "adding the stuff on my list into the article." I do not see that I have to give you a new set of objections, since I feel the old ones were sufficient, but regarding the debate section, I will say that I find that older versions of that section give readers little sense of what "debate" may actually exist. Mainly it was just a collection of quotations, few of which appeared to be chosen on any clear basis. There was almost no information about "debate" (in the sense of how different writers have responded to each other) there, so in addition to its contents being poorly chosen, the section itself was poorly named. In future, if you are going to make proposals to change the article, please make them clear and specific, not general and vague. Born Gay (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like we will have the NPOV tag for awhile. You insist on misrepresenting the medical view. It might be hard to reach NPOV on this article, but while you refuse to accurately represent the medical view it will remain NPOV. Your argument that "this article does not counterbalance the cures with the harm" appears to suggest that he wants the article to state that some people have been cured of homosexuality through conversion therapy, but stating that would create a POV problem" is ridiculous. If the statements by the medical organizations are POV, then you need to readjust what it means to be POV. You can't just say that statements by medical organizations are "unhelpful". Truth is truth, and unless it is accurately represented, it is NPOV.Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please sign your comments? It's hard to work out who I'm replying to otherwise. I am not trying to "misrepresent the medical view". I recognize that the section may need various kinds of changes to ensure accuracy, but that needs to be done very carefully and cautiously. There should be extensive discussion before major changes are made. What you have tried to do with that section, however, effectively reduces it to nonsense. It was (I suppose) not your intention to do that, but that was the result. Your claim that my comment about your views is ridiculous is itself ridiculous, if you're implying that mainstream medical organizations think that homosexuality can be "cured." Born Gay (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- The medical view emphasizes self-determination. You delete any reference to self-determination. Hence you are misrepresenting the medical view. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. The new APA report was largely dismissive of that argument. I've removed the references to self-determination from the American medical consensus section partly because they're a direct quotation, and it's awkward to stuff such a quotation, chosen on a questionable basis, in the middle of other statements, all of which are summary. Born Gay (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The medical view does emphasize self-determination. The American Psychological Association has stated "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination". [20] The American Counseling Association has stated "In summary, if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy."[21] The new APA report is all about a client being able to live their own life. What part of self-determination are they largely dismissive of? They say the client can pursue whatever lifestyle they want, and that a therapist should allow the client to develop a heterosexual identity if they so chose. They shouldn't claim to be able to change sexual orientation, but the client can do whatever they want. The medical view does not try to force any type of lifestyle on anyone. This article as currently written makes it seem as if the medical organizations are trying to force a gay lifestyle on individuals, when in reality they are perfectly content with clients living a straight lifestyle. That is a misrepresentation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Quotations showing that self-determination is mentioned don't show that it's the main part of the medical view; many more critical or negative comments about conversion therapy could be offered. Mentioning self-determination outside the context of criticism gives the wrong impression. Regarding the new report, see chapter 7, especially the part stating "We believe that simply providing SOCE to clients who request it does not necessarily increase self determination but rather abdicates the responsibility of LMHP to provide competent assessment and interventions that have the potential for benefit with a limited risk of harm." Born Gay (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never said we had to mention self-determination outside of the context of the criticism. I am fine having it with the context of criticism. The sentence you quote does not say that self-determination is bad or unimportant, but instead talks about ways that do not increase self-determination. Increasing self-determination is still important. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with your position is that the mainstream organizations mention self-determination but don't really emphasise it. The quote from the APA ("In summary, if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy") doesn't sound to me like emphasizing self-determination; it looks more like de-emphasizing it. This kind of secondary aspect of the mainstream view shouldn't be in the lead. Born Gay (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is because self-determination is emphasized elsewhere, in context of other therapies, since simply providing SOCE doesn't increase self-determination. Self-determination can be increased through other therapies. Other therapies and approaches are emphasized in these reports, if we are going strictly by what is emphasized in these reports. It is emphasized much more that "the advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation." I don't think that belongs in the lead, since it is mostly about the advancement of conversion therapy and its affects on society at large, rather than with the people who are requesting conversion therapy. You still haven't convinced me that self-determination doesn't belong in the lead, but for now, how about we talk about self-determination in the consensus rather than the lead, and we talk about other therapies in the lead? Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Saying they "emphasize" it suggests that they consider this more important than other points, like the fact that it's unproven and potentially harmful. The sentence about the advancement of conversion therapy causing "social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation" does belong in the lead, since this is an article about conversion therapy generally, not about the people who request it. The medical consensus section has many complicated problems, and discussion here, which increasingly seems circular, has not addressed any of them properly. Born Gay (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with you, but for now, can I put it in the guidelines section instead of the lead? Do you have any objections to me putting in material about self-determination and related therapies that respect self-determination better than conversion therapy in the ethical guidelines section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say, because I don't know precisely what you intend to add; your explanation of that is unclear. I'm not sure why material about "related therapies that respect self-determination better than conversion therapy" should be here, because this an article about conversion therapy, after all. It sounds a little like you plan to add something that's off-topic. Born Gay (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindented)I plan to write something under the APA section along the lines of "A 2009 report reaffirmed earlier rulings. They recommended other therapies that do not claim to change sexual orientation, but assists the patient to understand the reasons for wanting to change, and guides them in the formation of a new identity that would be acceptable to them, including the rejection of gay identity." The section is on the guidelines, and the guidelines outlines what is appropriate and what is not. This is the appropriate alternative to conversion therapy, as outlined in the guidelines. To censure this information would be misleading, as it would imply that all efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions were condemned by the mainstream medical association. I would like a discussion of what to add. If you have a problem with my summary, I would like to know what exactly is your problem so that we can come together to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, misleading the reader to think that self-determination is not an issue and there is no acceptable alternative to conversion therapy is not acceptable. If we cannot come to a mutually agreeable solution, I will put up a misleading flag, as I feel that current article is misleading. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the new report simply reaffirmed earlier rulings, and did not change the ethical guidelines, I am not sure why anything should be added. The entire article already has a POV warning on it. Adding yet more flags and tags is without justification and would look like a violation of WP:POINT. Born Gay (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Cutting back history
I have removed large parts of the history section (most of which I added in the first place), in most cases because there are no sources stating that the material in them relates to conversion therapy, which makes it original research, and in some cases because the material is relevant but undue. I have shifted some of that material to a more appropriate article, and added a link to it here. I have proposed changes similar to this on the talk page and on my project page, and no one has objected, so I have now finally made some of my proposed changes, which have been overdue for months. The current arrangement of the sections is provisional and will require further changes, and no doubt more material will have to be carefully cut back. Born Gay (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
American medical consensus
Joshuajohanson, without waiting for a proper discussion on the talk page, has made a series of destructive and unhelpful changes to this crucial section of the article. I have accordingly reverted them. I'm sorry, but changes like this, which can easily look like POV pushing to make the article portray conversion therapy in a positive way, even if that is not how you intend them, need to be more extensively discussed than they have been so far here. One other editor expressing agreement with you, without explaining his or her grounds for the agreement in any way, is not good enough. There are many other editors who are interested in this article, and you should wait to give them the opportunity to express their views on this. If necessary, place a request for comment, so that a proper consensus can be developed here, not just a temporary agreement of two editors. I repeat my suggestion to Knulclunk to explain why he or she agrees with Joshuajohanson. Born Gay (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So that we can be absolutely clear what is under discussion here, the version of that section edited by Joshuajohanson looks like this:
American medical consensus
The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness[3][4][5] or whether recent methods "do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." Older methods have been found to be ineffective at changing sexual orientation.[6] Mainstream medical bodies state that conversion therapy can be harmful because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide.[7] There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies[4], and there is extensive debate on the matter.[8] The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other.[9] One report indicates that participants are at increased risk for guilt, depression, anxiety, confusion, self-blame, suicidal gestures, unprotected anal intercourse with untested partners, and heavy substance abuse.[10] Another report indicated that most of the participants found that the therapy was helpful to them, psychologically, spiritually, and sexually.[11] There is a broad concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy itself causes social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of gay and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives.[4]
Notes
- ^ APA: Gay conversion therapy can cause depression and suicide attempts
- ^ What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality(Summary) NARTH website, accessed Aug 29, 2009
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
answers
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
apa
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ H., K (1999-01-15), APA Maintains Reparative Therapy Not Effective, Psychiatric News (news division of the American Psychiatric Association), retrieved 2007-08-28
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation
- ^ Luo, Michael (2007-02-12), Some Tormented by Homosexuality Look to a Controversial Therapy, The New York Times, p. 1, retrieved 2007-08-28
{{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation
- ^ Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation
- ^ Shidlo & Schroeder 2002, pp. 249–259
- ^ [1]
Discussion on American medical consensus
I am going to state my objections to this at length on the talk page - working out the details of this section requires a proper discussion on the talk page between responsible editors, not more cavalier editing on the article. My first comment on it is simply that it's a confusing and unappetizing mess. Maybe Joshuajohanson is simply trying to be fair to both sides, but if so the result of his attempt is a disaster. The various statements that make up that section are not harmonized with each other in any comprehensible way. Born Gay (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, it appears written in a complex way that seeks to present as 'neutral' a point that is made by cherry-picking through the latest position, but fails to convey the substance of the report, which is actually quite straightforward. There is no evidence that SOCE works, and the best evidence is that SOCE doesn't work, there is as much evidence for it as causing harm as helping, and therapists should not be promoting therapies that claim SOCE works. If we need to include what is said about other approaches which seek to change sexual orientation identity in this article, that needs discussion as well. Mish (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- The basic problem I see with that section, in the version that Joshuajohanson has edited it into, is that it does not really describe a "consensus." A consensus would be a group of positions that all the mainstream groups can agree upon, not a collection of, "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" sort of statements. If the consensus section does not present a consistent view on the issue, then it's no longer a consensus section but a debate section with a very misleading name. In addition, I think the writing is dubious. A statement like, "The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other" could be read in different ways and is dangerously ambiguous. Born Gay (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reference 11 in the section above is a study by NARTH supporters A. Dean Byrd, Joseph Nicolosi, and Richard W. Potts. I believe this is the same study that Destinero removed from the article a while ago. One may make the argument that the study should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it certainly shouldn't be part of American medical consensus. Born Gay (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not part of any consensus, because this study is addressed in the recent APA report, and the reasons for excluding it were detailed. It is a view that runs contrary to consensus. The consensus is that it harms, the position that runs counter to consensus is that it may be helpful rather than harmful. Mish (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus is that there is no evidence for harm, but there is potential for harm. There is no evidence for benefit, and the two counterbalance each other. If there is no consensus, then we should rename the title. There is extensive debate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, that is what the report found - the consensus is not the same thing as a systematic review. The consensus is what the various policy statements say. There is consensus, and the advocates of this type of therapy are outside it - that is why all major professional bodies do not support any therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. That is the consensus. They don't support it because there is no evidence that it works, and because the best available (earlier) evidence is that it harms. There is no reason to go into more detail, as I have tried to explain before. Consensus can, and has, been reached on this basis, because it is not down to those who form the consensus to prove or disprove anything - it is up to the advocates, who have failed to do so. Mish (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the NPOV tag on this section, for the reasons discussed above, as well as detailed on the reverting edit - but, there is another reason why this tag is not appropriate, the entire article is already tagged as NPOV, so this sort of over-tagging in that light could be seen as vandalism. Either tag the section(s) that need attention, or the whole article if it needs attention throughout - but there is little point tagging both the article and section (if the article needs attention, it adds nothing to point out one particular section). Mish (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that JoshuaJohanson has done a great job with this edit, and am amazed to find that it is being criticised when it is so scrupulously neutral. Wrinkles should be ironed out by editing, not reverting. Hyper3 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mish, that isn't just the most recent study. The 2001 study, which specifically addressed conversion therapy said "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." Just like there is nothing to determine the efficacy, there is nothing to determine the harm. Why is Nicolosi not representative of a consensus, but Shidlo & Schroeder 2002 are? I would point out that the ACA referenced Nicolosi's study when passing their resolution.[22] See ref 4. The ACA resolution states "if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy." Why isn't self-determination mentioned in this? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- You ask why he is not part of the consensus. The answer is in the recent policy document. The consensus of professional and psychiatric and psychological associations are that therapies like he promotes have no sound basis. Obviously, he is not part of that consensus. Him and three or four other people in the profession in the USA. That is OK, but it does not make his view part of the consensus. His view runs contrary to the consensus, and it would not be appropriate to include somebody whose views runs contrary to the consensus in a section that is called 'the consensus...', would it? His view would have to be in a section about views outside the consensus (although if these are fringe views, they may not warrant inclusion at all - but that is a different discussion). His views might hold a certain consensus amongst some religious groups, but that does not make them part of the mainstream psychological consensus, especially when the association representing that consensus has spelled out the problems with any approach that seeks to change sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- That seems like SYNTH. The APA published his work, and then the ACA quoted it. It is hardly fringe. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- You ask why he is not part of the consensus. The answer is in the recent policy document. The consensus of professional and psychiatric and psychological associations are that therapies like he promotes have no sound basis. Obviously, he is not part of that consensus. Him and three or four other people in the profession in the USA. That is OK, but it does not make his view part of the consensus. His view runs contrary to the consensus, and it would not be appropriate to include somebody whose views runs contrary to the consensus in a section that is called 'the consensus...', would it? His view would have to be in a section about views outside the consensus (although if these are fringe views, they may not warrant inclusion at all - but that is a different discussion). His views might hold a certain consensus amongst some religious groups, but that does not make them part of the mainstream psychological consensus, especially when the association representing that consensus has spelled out the problems with any approach that seeks to change sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mish, that isn't just the most recent study. The 2001 study, which specifically addressed conversion therapy said "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." Just like there is nothing to determine the efficacy, there is nothing to determine the harm. Why is Nicolosi not representative of a consensus, but Shidlo & Schroeder 2002 are? I would point out that the ACA referenced Nicolosi's study when passing their resolution.[22] See ref 4. The ACA resolution states "if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy." Why isn't self-determination mentioned in this? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that JoshuaJohanson has done a great job with this edit, and am amazed to find that it is being criticised when it is so scrupulously neutral. Wrinkles should be ironed out by editing, not reverting. Hyper3 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus is that there is no evidence for harm, but there is potential for harm. There is no evidence for benefit, and the two counterbalance each other. If there is no consensus, then we should rename the title. There is extensive debate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not part of any consensus, because this study is addressed in the recent APA report, and the reasons for excluding it were detailed. It is a view that runs contrary to consensus. The consensus is that it harms, the position that runs counter to consensus is that it may be helpful rather than harmful. Mish (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that there is no agreement at the moment on this part of the article. Perhaps it needs to be changed in important ways, but, simply to state the obvious, we need to discuss whether or how to do that before making major changes. Discussion is the way to resolve things. Also, I agree with Mish that tagging both the article as a whole and one section of it in particular is excessive, unnecessary, and may potentially even be seen as vandalism. Born Gay (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have left the tag off. You say there is no agreement, but you do not address my concerns. You say the Nicolosi paper is fringe, and then I pointed out that it was printed by the APA and then the ACA quoted it. You not being able to come up with a response does not mean there is no agreement and it should be left out. Give me a good reason why you removed Nicolosi's study and I will drop it, otherwise, I will put it back in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have a response. Nicolosi's views don't represent the APA's views, whoever printed them. They aren't the APA's positions or part of their policy, and it's absurd to pretend they are. Born Gay (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- How come Shidlo & Schroeder's findings that "Participants are at increased risk for guilt, depression, anxiety, confusion, self-blame, suicidal gestures, unprotected anal intercourse with untested partners, and heavy substance abuse" gets a part in the consensus section then? My main beef is that accounts of harm are not being counterbalanced with accounts of cure, like the source says. We either need the Nicolosi survey to balance the Shidlo paper, or talk about the cures found in the Shidlo paper, or remove the Shidlo paper altogether, but to reference only the most negative part of the more negative paper is not NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did suggest we discuss the changes one by one, and I for one do not have the time to engage with them all at the same time. Can I suggest you do this - go through each change, one by one, to give other editors time to respond - rather than chucking everything in the pot all at once. Nicolosi is not part of the section on the medical consensus because NARTH is not part of the medical consensus. How many ways does this need saying before this makes sense? The medical consensus specifically addresses Nicolosi. If you feel it is unfair, then take it up with the APA. Mish (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not 100% sure Shidlo and Schroeder should be in that section, but it's not without some justification, since their views are generally in line with the mainstream view. Nicolosi obviously does not belong. The details of what should be there and what should not are complicated, and need patient discussion and consideration - otherwise there will be a lot of editing that will be reverted, quickly or over the longer term, without the article being improved. Born Gay (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fund a quote from the recent APA report that covers 'both sides', and averts the need to quote either directly, but I have placed it here: Conversion therapy#Changing Sexual Orientation, as that is where it seems more appropriate, as that is what it is describing (rather than being the consensus itself). Mish (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not 100% sure Shidlo and Schroeder should be in that section, but it's not without some justification, since their views are generally in line with the mainstream view. Nicolosi obviously does not belong. The details of what should be there and what should not are complicated, and need patient discussion and consideration - otherwise there will be a lot of editing that will be reverted, quickly or over the longer term, without the article being improved. Born Gay (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did suggest we discuss the changes one by one, and I for one do not have the time to engage with them all at the same time. Can I suggest you do this - go through each change, one by one, to give other editors time to respond - rather than chucking everything in the pot all at once. Nicolosi is not part of the section on the medical consensus because NARTH is not part of the medical consensus. How many ways does this need saying before this makes sense? The medical consensus specifically addresses Nicolosi. If you feel it is unfair, then take it up with the APA. Mish (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- How come Shidlo & Schroeder's findings that "Participants are at increased risk for guilt, depression, anxiety, confusion, self-blame, suicidal gestures, unprotected anal intercourse with untested partners, and heavy substance abuse" gets a part in the consensus section then? My main beef is that accounts of harm are not being counterbalanced with accounts of cure, like the source says. We either need the Nicolosi survey to balance the Shidlo paper, or talk about the cures found in the Shidlo paper, or remove the Shidlo paper altogether, but to reference only the most negative part of the more negative paper is not NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have a response. Nicolosi's views don't represent the APA's views, whoever printed them. They aren't the APA's positions or part of their policy, and it's absurd to pretend they are. Born Gay (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Recent reorganisation
I think that treating Europe together, rather than nationally, looks OK. One problem though. United Kingdom is in Europe. How do you propose dealing with that? Mish (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- The arrangement of sections is provisional. It can and no doubt will be changed. I have yet to work out the details; the point of my recent edits was only to remove the material that most obviously does not belong in the article. Born Gay (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The arbitration cases on fringe theories are very relevant; at one point it says:
“ | 1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. | ” |
I believe that the views being quoted by Joshuajohanson, are just this: significant alternatives, and are not pseudoscience, as studies can be found in appropriate journals. Hyper3 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is that comment relevant to the particulars of this discussion? Joshuajohanson wants to include a study by NARTH supporters in a consensus section even though NARTH is not part of the medical consensus - in what way would that be fair? Born Gay (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo's comments
I think this comment from Jimbo is helpful:
“ | If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. | ” |
recent series of edits
I have reverted the recent edits, because the way to approach contested material is not to insert it and then seek discussion. With WP:BOLD, once the insertion is made, if it is then contested, the way to deal with this is negotiation through to consensus - not persistent re-insertion. The onus is on the inserting editor to convince other editors that the insertion is justified. What I say here cannot be WP:SYNTH, because this is a discussion. What is inserted in the article can be WP:SYNTH, and this recent insertion does appear to be so. The evidence is not the consensus, the consensus is arrived at based upon the evidence - the evidence is not the consensus.Mish (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is what is contained in the statement below (references edited out for brevity, except the sole reference to Nicolosi in a way that shows his views are not accommodated within the consensus:
- WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association expressly opposes prejudice (defined broadly) and discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status
- WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association takes a leadership role in opposing prejudice and discrimination, including prejudice based on or derived from religion or spirituality, and encourages commensurate
consideration of religion and spirituality as diversity variables;
- WHEREAS, Psychologists respect human diversity including age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status and psychologists strive to prevent bias from their own spiritual, religious, or non-religious beliefs from taking precedence over professional practice and standards or scientific findings in their work as psychologists;
- WHEREAS, Psychologists are encouraged to recognize that it is outside the role and expertise of psychologists, as psychologists, to adjudicate religious or spiritual tenets, while also recognizing that psychologists
can appropriately speak to the psychological implications of religious/spiritual beliefs or practices when relevant psychological findings about those implications exist;
- WHEREAS, Those operating from religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, whilealso recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science;
- WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association encourages collaborative activities in pursuit of shared prosocial goals between psychologists and religious communities when such collaboration can be done in a mutually respectful manner that is consistent with psychologists’ professional and scientific roles;
- WHEREAS, Societal ignorance and prejudice about a same-sex sexual orientation places some sexual minorities at risk for seeking sexual orientation change due to personal, family, or religious conflicts, or lack of information;
- WHEREAS, Some mental health professionals advocate treatments based on the premise that homosexuality is a mental disorder (e.g., Nicolosi, 1991);
- WHEREAS, Sexual minority children and youth are especially vulnerable populations with unique developmental tasks who lack adequate legal protection from involuntary or coercive treatment and whose
parents and guardians need accurate information to make informed decisions regarding their development and well-being; and
- WHEREAS, Research has shown that family rejection is a predictor of negative outcomes and that parental acceptance and school support are protective factors for sexual minority youth;
- THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the emerging knowledge on affirmative multiculturally competent treatment provides a foundation for an appropriate evidence-based practice with children, adolescents and adults who are distressed by or seek to change their sexual orientation;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages practitioners to consider the ethical concerns outlined in the 1997 APA Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Response to Sexual Orientation, in particular the following standards and principles: scientific bases for professional judgments, benefit and harm, justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages practitioners to be aware that age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, disability, language, and socioeconomic status may interact with sexual stigma, and contribute to variations in sexual orientation identity development, expression, and experience;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association opposes the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations seeking to influence public policy and public opinion and will take a leadership role in responding to such distortions;
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association supports the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias that is based in lack of knowledge about sexual orientation; and
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages advocacy groups, elected officials, mental health professionals, policy makers, religious professionals and organizations, and other organizations to seek areas of collaboration that may promote the wellbeing of sexual minorities.
The statement is quite clear that there is no evidence of benefits, and that is not WP:SYNTH, and there is no mention of reports of harm or benefit, and so insertion of that as being part of any consensus is itself WP:SYNTH. neither is there mention of changes to 'sexual orientation identity'. Mish (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Our job is to present all the facts. What you say is great and dandy, but it doesn't contradict with anything I have added. Before you claim that what I have added is "contested", please contest the material. Just a general "I don't like it" or "It is contested" or "There is no consensus" does address the specific issues at hand. I had already brought up these problems and listed them under NPOV flag section, and you said nothing. If you would like to contest anything I added, please feel free to contest it, but in the absence of any contention to the material, I am adding it back in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't contest it, somebody else did - and you re-inserted despite there being an ongoing discussion about it. When material is inserted within a series of edits, it is best to revert them so that the whole series can be proposed here and discussed one by one. I have yet to see this happen. The onus is on the one inserting to justify their edits, and as yet I have not seen any attempt to do that. You have been invited to discuss these edits, yet have gone on and resumed the serial insertions and reversions. Now, I am not going to revert your reversion, but I must warn you that if you persist in working this way you will find yourself reported for edit warring. I am going to suggest that you revert this material yourself, as a sign of good faith, and participate in discussion instead - and if you do not, it will work against you should this come to lodging a notice about you. Working this way will not improve the article. To be clear, what you inserted is not included in the above, so is not part of the APA consensus, nor any other position statment. You are welcome to discuss whether it is appropriate elsewhere, but Nicolosi and the discussion about benefits of conversion therapy does not belong in the section on consensus, because the consensus is that there is no evidence for any benefit - and the consensus specifically singles out Nicolosi's approach for comment. You may not like that - but that is what it says. Mish (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article should remain as it was before the latest war errupted if there is no agreement for the changes made by Joshuajohanson (Joshuajohanson may be right that the consensus section has various problems, but even if he is, his proposed solutions to them, such as including Nicolosi in the consensus, are only making matters worse). In any event, the article will be protected from editing again quite quickly, I think, if the edit warring does not stop. Born Gay (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- This would be the point were one of the contesting editors, Mish and Born Gay, would take Joshuajohanson's concerns and constructively work with him in getting them into the article. Mish: All your very verbose APA statement says is that the APA is opposed to prejudice and is concerned about furthering prejudice through therapy. Since this is already in the article, why did you have to spend 2 pages restating it? Joshuajohanson: We cannot claim there is significant debate about conversion therapy unless there are mainstream sources (like the NYTimes) that says there are. Please work to improve that or let it go. Born Gay: All this "mainstream medical research" crap is taken from a couple of press releases from the last 10 years (see WP:RECENT) by the admittedly liberal APA because of pressure from GLADD, NGLTF and others. The APA is important and should be quoted here, of course, but the fact that it is being held up as the STANDARD OF TRUTH and NO OTHER OPINIONS OR FACTS SHALL GET PAST is becoming a little frustrating. Obviously many people find counseling and spiritual counseling helpful with unwanted sexual desires. Now get over your agendas and work to make this article more accurate, better and useful.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not going to "take Joshuajohanson's concerns and constructively work with him in getting them into the article" because Joshuajohanson is egregiously wrong in most of what he has been arguing. A small number of his suggestions may have merit (the Nicolosi et al study should perhaps be mentioned in the Studies of Conversion therapy section, for instance), but most of them are harmful, some of them extremely harmful, such as his changes to the consensus section. Telling me to take his concerns seriously is useless if you can't or won't consider what I have said in response to him. Don't use scatology in your comments to me, because I don't appreciate it, and might even be tempted to say something nasty in response. Your complaints about how the APA is "liberal" and acting under pressure from GLAAD are irrelevant and show a failure to understand WP:NPOV. The APA is a reliable source, whether it states things through press releases or in any other way, and it does not matter why you think they take a particular position. Your views about what is "obvious" likewise are irrelevant. Born Gay (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst we need to continue quoting the APA, (and no one is saying otherwise) it is important to work into the article the ongoing minority views of those who believe unwanted same-sex attractions can receive legitimate help. Just saying the APA doesn't agree with them is not really relevant; we know that already. This is the conversion therapy article, not the homosexuality page! This is what the page is for!! We must address the current state of play in conversion therapy, both for and against. Hyper3 (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Knulclunk. I stated the APA position in full as that is the consensus statement, and what he is seeking to add to the consensus is not there. That he does not accept this means the only way of showing that is to include it in full. If you don't think much of the APA, that is fine, but that is not NPOV. The APA is "The American Psychological Association", not "An American Psychological Association", it is the professional association, and this is very significant. Whether they are liberal or lobbied by GLADD is irrelevant - the were lobbied by lots of people, ex-gay groups included, and they determined a particular response which outlined what members should or should not be doing, and why. One thing they clearly state is that psychotherpists should not be claiming they can change people's sexual orientation, because there is no evidence that this is the case, and it could be harmful. You, Hyper and JJ might not like this, but this is what they said, and trying to present what they said as if they said something else runs completely contrary to what this encyclopedia is about. I also agree that the minority view needs to be addressed - but the whole point of the APA policy is to address that, and it only makes sense in relation to that. The way it needs to be dealt with is not as part of the consensus, as the consensus is not the minority view, but the majority view which sees the minority view as invalid, and present it for what it is, a minority view that very few professionals support. Mish (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't get your point - do you mean the British Psychological Society's views should also be represented under the American consensus as well as NARTH's? Or does this relate to some other section? I am sure there is room for some other countries - we have the USA, Canada, Australia, much of Europe. Which region/country would you like to start a section for? Best way is to draft the section in a sandbox and get other editors to comment. Mish (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint
“ | In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. | ” |
Why can't we write this article according to wikipedia policy? Hyper3 (talk)
- This is not an article about a minority view of conversion therapy. It's an article about conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please check the title of the article: "Conversion therapy." Born Gay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- What should the title be, if it were an article about the minority view that sexual orientation can be changed by therapy? Other than this, I presume. Hyper3 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion is really pointless. An article called conversion therapy is about conversion therapy. It isn't about pro-conversion therapy viewpoints. Born Gay (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to you there are no articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, they are all just about whatever the article is about. You don't want to talk about it. But this is an article about a minority viewpoint, and as such it should conform to the policy above, and it is therefore OK to give weight to the views in question. If not, then we need to start a page on the particular minority viewpoint that sexual orientation can be changed - what would that be called? Hyper3 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion is really pointless. An article called conversion therapy is about conversion therapy. It isn't about pro-conversion therapy viewpoints. Born Gay (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- What should the title be, if it were an article about the minority view that sexual orientation can be changed by therapy? Other than this, I presume. Hyper3 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please check the title of the article: "Conversion therapy." Born Gay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ex-gay section
Born Gay, this has numerous problems. 1] "outside the scientific community" - you know there are people within the scientific community who agree with this. 2] you characterise the testimony of those who claim to have been helped as suspect without source. 3] weasel words - who are you saying has suspect ethics? Please source 4] Several have been disgraced - whilst this is true you do not source 5] you use one example, cherry-picked from many, and therefore this is WP:UNDUE.
Hyper3 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the first edit summary in which I restored that content, all of it sourced, I stated that your removal of it was borderline vandalism. I take that back - I regard it as vandalism, full stop. Please cease vandalizing immediately. Born Gay (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is only one quotation - how is it sourced? If it is all sourced from one place, that does not stop it from being WP:UNDUE. Merely quoting other people's weasel words does not make it fit for an encyclopaedia project. Please address these issues before inserting the content again, and seek consensus, as per WP:WAR, as quoted to me above by your good self. Hyper3 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that [23] is returning improperly sourced claims and analysis and that the content is not at all up to Wikipedia policy standards. Very very many claims made without proper attribution to who is making them, many many conclusions made that are not assigned to the source making the conclusion etc. WP:SYN seems to be rife in the content that is returned in that section. I would suggest removing it from the article, working it up to standards in a user sandbox and then returning it because I believe that the content DOES represent mainstream and views of the subject, but not Wikipedias standards of how to show it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is only one quotation - how is it sourced? If it is all sourced from one place, that does not stop it from being WP:UNDUE. Merely quoting other people's weasel words does not make it fit for an encyclopaedia project. Please address these issues before inserting the content again, and seek consensus, as per WP:WAR, as quoted to me above by your good self. Hyper3 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Nice_Cup_of_Tea.jpg/220px-Nice_Cup_of_Tea.jpg)
Could I interest anyone with a nice cup of tea? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- My comments are here: WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down#September 2009
Nothing in that section is a direct quotation. It is a brief summary of an article in the source used, John Gonsiorek and James Weinrich's Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. The material there is not undue, is not synthesis, and is properly sourced. The concept of weasel words does not apply to material based directly and closely on a reliable source. There is no need to attribute the statements to the source in this case, as I believe it represents the mainstream view of the issue in reliable sources. The article can say as fact that ex-gay ministries are of questionable ethics and professionalism since, so far as I know, there is no dispute about that in reliable sources. However, if there are reliable sources which state that ex-gay ministries are in fact ethical and professional, then please present them. Born Gay (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
:What in the book backs the statement: "Ex-gay ministries are the main advocates of sexual orientation outside the scientific community." ? A search only shows ministry or ministries appearing in "there are creative and affirming Catholic ministries". -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Discussing who is agenda driven and who is not is not helpful here, Knulclunk. Gonsiorek and Weinrich represent the mainstream view of this subject and appear to be perfectly respectable. They can be assumed to be a reliable source unless there is some reason to think otherwise; you have provided none. I have reverted your unexplained removal of sourced information about some ex-gay leaders being disgraced and having sex with their clients. Please use proper edit summaries in future; a comment like, "un like.... uh .... psycologists are anyone else in any profession?" is inappropriate and explains nothing. Born Gay (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- The RedPenofDoom has removed this content again. I won't restore it right away, but it is important, properly sourced information and there is no good reason for it to be removed. The article cannot give a precise count of the number of people who have done this, and nor does it have to, so "several" is an appropriate word (it is based upon the statement that, "more than one religious group leader has 'fallen from grace' for having sex with clients who are themselves in treatment for conversion of sexual orientation.") I do not understand the comment that, "wording makes it appear as if it is somehow improper relations between conversion therapists and clients, and not between gay positive therapist or strait therapists." What are you trying to say? Born Gay (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- To answer the question The RedPenofDoom crossed out: what supports this is the statement, "Apart from the efforts of the scientific community, the primary proponents of sexual orientation change have been pastors and religiously-oriented lay persons." That is on page 156 of Gonsiorek and Weinrich. I provided a reasonable summary, as this does not need a direct quote. Born Gay (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted the removal of the material about es-gay leaders having sex with clients - but have tagged it as dubious and in need of specificity. 'More than one' is not the same as 'some', and as the lack of clarity is from the source, the claim needs to be clearly stated as being the view of the source, not us. In fact the whole section needs to be more explicit that this is the view of the source, as the way it reads now it comes across as our view. I am not sure that this rhetorical device is necessary. If one or two therapists do something, what does that say about about the movement generally - why is it relevant? Because there is already a main article on Ex-Gay linked at the head of the section, all this section should be is a brief summary of that article. At the moment there is a war of attrition on this article, with a group of editors making multiple edits throughout the article. This is not the way to proceed, and will inevitably result in people being reported and article protection. Changes need to be discussed here first, revised edits suggested here and worked on before insertion. Mish (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- The material itself is not dubious; the source used clearly supports this statement. I don't think that there is a need to qualify this as the view of the source, because there are no reliable sources stating that it has not happened. In fact, since reliable sources do not contradict what is there, there should be no need to qualify anything as the view of the source used. Such incidents show something important about the ex-gay movements failings, and I do not think that this information should be removed. It would be a mistake to conclude that the ex-gay section in this article should be a brief summary of that article, as here we are discussing the ex-gay movement as a form of conversion therapy - which is not necessarily the purpose of the main article. I was careful not to add too much information about ex-gay scandals, because that would have repeated too much information already in the main ex-gay article. Instead, I added different content (about the Pattisons' study) that wasn't already to be found elsewhere. Born Gay (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Therapists having inappropriate relationships with their clients has ZERO to do with whether the therapists are Coversion Therapy believers or Gay positive therapists. That statement cannot stay until you provide a source that clearly links the Conversion Therapy itself to the inapproprate behavior. Just because something is printed in a source somewhere does not give it carte blanche to be used in any Wikipedia article. It must be used appropriately and that claim is not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- The material itself is not dubious; the source used clearly supports this statement. I don't think that there is a need to qualify this as the view of the source, because there are no reliable sources stating that it has not happened. In fact, since reliable sources do not contradict what is there, there should be no need to qualify anything as the view of the source used. Such incidents show something important about the ex-gay movements failings, and I do not think that this information should be removed. It would be a mistake to conclude that the ex-gay section in this article should be a brief summary of that article, as here we are discussing the ex-gay movement as a form of conversion therapy - which is not necessarily the purpose of the main article. I was careful not to add too much information about ex-gay scandals, because that would have repeated too much information already in the main ex-gay article. Instead, I added different content (about the Pattisons' study) that wasn't already to be found elsewhere. Born Gay (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- How can you suggest that Gonsiorek and Weinrich are mainstream, reliable sources?[24][25]--Knulclunk (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- To reply to TheRedPenOfDoom: Your concerns seem misguided to me. The article by Haldeman in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy that is the source for this clearly indicates that ex-gay ministries have ethical problems, and that the risk of sexual exploitation is one of them. He describes several cases of such abuse at some length, clearly showing that it's important, so the article should cover this. That sexual exploitation may also happen to occur in other kinds of psychotherapy is an irrelevant objection to including this content. I'm not engaging in any kind of synthesis of sources here - everything is based straightforwardly on one source and if you dispute this, then look the source up and see for yourself. Born Gay (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Pseudo science
Although I personally agree that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, I have nevertheless reverted the addition of this category to the article. The category page states that, "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)." Conversion therapy is widely criticised within the scientific community, but so far no one has provided sources to show that they generally regard it as pseudoscientific. In fact, I'm aware of only a single article, by Douglas Haldeman, that calls it a pseudoscience. The various statements about conversion therapy by professional bodies in the United States do not use the term "pseudoscience", and we cannot attribute such a view to them unless they specifically use that term, as it would be original research. Mentioning that conversion therapy has been called pseudoscience would be helpful, but the category should not be added without more evidence to support it. Born Gay (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Aesthetic Realism
BornGay: I added Aesthetic Realism. You removed it saying it was unsourced. I added it back, heavily sourcing it. You removed it again, demanding that I prove it was part of the history of conversion therapy in the U.S. (ignoring the fact that that evidence was provided in the text you removed). Aesthetic Realism exactly fits the definition of conversion therapy, defined in the opening sentence of the article as, "Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, involves methods intended to convert bisexual, lesbian and gay people to heterosexuality[1]." They published two books and one film on the subject, gave TV interviews, and purchased huge ads in the largest newspapers in the country to tout their "fix" for homosexuality. Moreover, countless people, seeing all this publicity, flocked to their headquarters to undertake AR's conversion therapy. If that doesn't count as both relevant and notable, I don't know what does. I rather think you have the burden of proof in this instance, making a case that AR was *not* relevant and notable in the history of conversion therapy in the U.S. MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, there are only a handful of sources that describe the history of conversion therapy as a whole. In fact, there are only two main sources, an article by Jack Drescher and another by Kenji Yoshino. Neither of these mentions Aesthetic Realism. So, per policies of due weight, Aesthetic Realism does not belong in the history section (and note that I'm not concerned only with Aesthetic Realism - I have been steadily removing large amounts of material about other processes and theories that supposedly change homosexuality because they likewise fail the test of due weight). Describing Aesthetic Realism, or anything else, as conversion therapy, directly or by implication, is original research unless there are sources that specifically describe it that way. Since there are multiple definitions of conversion therapy, rather than a single definition, it is not clear what it is supposed to mean to call something conversion therapy anyway, which is why we have to follow reliable sources as closely as we can. The statement in the opening sentence of the lead is not a definition of conversion therapy at all, only an explanation of its most important feature. Burden of proof is always on the person adding the material. Born Gay (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I won't revert again right away, but Michaelbluejay's readding of this material again [26] is a serious mistake. None of the sources he uses appear to empoly the term "conversion therapy". We have to limit the history section to things that sources describe as conversion therapy - otherwise it will become much too long, full of original research and undue material, and ultimately completely unmanageable. This is an article specifically about conversion therapy, not about attempts to change homosexuality generally, which is a much larger phenomenon that includes many things that are not necessarily conversion therapy. I would respectfully suggest that Michaelbluejay consider the complex issues facing the history section as a whole rather than focus only on Aesthetic Realism. Born Gay (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any WP:RS that describes AR using the phrase 'conversion therapy' or 'reparative therapy', or did they describe what they were doing as either of these? If so, it should stay in - if not then it would be [[WP::OR]] to include it. If it cannot be shown, and this is accepted, then Bergler ought to go back in, on the same logic. He did not describe himself as doing CT, nor are there any sources so describing his work, but if any attempt to change homosexual orientation is to be included, then he obviously should as well. We cannot arbitrarily pick and choose what is and isn't CT - there has to be a standard and it needs to be applied consistently. Mish (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- The term "conversion therapy" does not appear to have been used before the early 1990s. The Gonsiorek and Weinrich book is the earliest source I am aware of that uses it. Since Aesthetic Realism stopped promoting itself as a "cure" for homosexuality in 1990, it's most unlikely that there are any sources that describe it as conversion therapy, as the writers that produce the literature on the topic would have little reason to take an interest in it. Bergler is an entirely different question. It is true he did not describe his own work as conversion therapy, but that is not the point - the issue is whether reliable sources have described it that way. Yoshino includes Bergler as part of the history of conversion therapy in Covering, so there's no question it is relevant. Born Gay (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing. It's rather bizarre to me that we can't use the explanation of the subject in the intro of the article itself as an accurate description of what the subject is. If the opening is truly inaccurate, then the solution is to fix the opening, not blot out added material that conforms to the opening.
You're right, the phrase "conversion therapy" wasn't used much before the 1990's, yet the U.S. history section goes back to 1909. It seems unfair to dismiss AR as not CT just because it wasn't described when it was mostly written about using a term that didn't yet exist. (And yes, it also seems unfair to expect others to have written about AR's CT posthumously using the new term.)
I don't know whether there are truly too many CT or CT-related programs for the history section, but certainly AR was rather notable, and one of the most visible in the the 1970's and 80's. In any event, it would be helpful to know exactly how you're defining conversion therapy, and exactly why AR doesn't meet the definition. (And again, I wouldn't say that AR's not being described as CT before the term CT even existed would count. I want to know why AR doesn't meet the definition of CT, whatever that definition is.)
Anyway, here are some sources that suggest that AR is indeed CT, though I again insist strongly that use of the term CT should not be the final arbiter of inclusion. The criteria should simply be whether the candidate meets the definition.
- The article itself cites Kronemeyer as having reviewed AR, though he decided it wasn't effective. If the article trusts that Kronemeyer was relevant to CT, then things that Kronemeyer considered relevant to CT are indeed relevant.
- Wresting with God and Men, page 293, refers to AR's program for change as "therapy", in a footnote from page 229, the subject of which is "reparative therapy" (a synonym listed in the intro to this WP article).
- source This article contains the following excerpt:
- Consider "Shalom," a gay Jewish physician in his early 40s who was in conversion therapy for 11 years....[After various other approaches] failed, he entered Aesthetic Realism, a New York-based group that works with gay people to change their sexual orientation.....[One day] he broke down in the cab and began crying. "I felt emotionally raped," he says. "I couldn't keep acting. I decided to accept it. At 31, I came out to myself." Conversion therapy, Shalom says, is emotionally destructive. He says a friend of his who was "cured" of gayness later tried to take his own life. "You don't change," he says. "You only end up hating yourself even more." MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please see my project page [27] regarding the problems involved in creating a suitable lead for the article. Despite what you seem to be suggesting, the statement in the first sentence is indeed an accurate description of conversion therapy, as far as it goes. It is not a definition, because no one definition can be offered. The total absence of any direct mention of Aesthetic Realism in any source dealing with the history of conversion therapy means that the material you added about this does not meet the test of due weight. I doubt that Beliefnet is a reliable source, and in any case it does not say anything about Aesthetic Realism being a significant part of the history of conversion therapy. Determining what meets due weight should be based on proper academic sources rather than articles on a magazine-style website. Notability is irrelevant, because that concerns only what subjects may have articles created about them. That Kronemeyer (who is described as part of the history of conversion therapy by Yoshino) mentions Aesthetic Realism is the only possible reason why it might deserve a mention here, and any mention it might warrant would have to be extremely brief. Born Gay (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- See also Talk:Conversion_therapy/Archive_7#Aesthetic Realism, Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 8#Aesthetic Realism. I'll have to look, but I did find some sources from the 1970s that include AR among lists of therapies. Will Beback talk 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
BornGay, you keep ignoring what I'm saying (including, but definitely not limited to, the fact that you haven't demonstrated how AR supposedly doesn't meet the definition of conversion therapy), you ignore most of my sources, and you unfairly dismiss the rest. (e.g., The "Wrestling" article *certainly* implies that AR is conversion therapy, by name.) As such I will stop discussing and continue to re-insert the relevant, sourced, and notable content back to the article, as many times as necessary. MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- We shouldn't limit this article to sources that use the term "conversion therapy." We should allow anything that could be described as "conversion therapy." Don't give up Bluejay! Hyper3 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Michaelbluejay: I have not ignored what you said. I paid careful attention. What you said, however, was mostly wrong. There is no such thing as "the definition of conversion therapy", something I would have thought was perfectly obvious, and nor is it crucial whether the material meets any particular definition, because the material you want to add is WP:UNDUE. If you stop discussing and continue to reinsert the material without consensus you will probably end up being blocked. Born Gay (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, otherwise we really will end up with African pastors, Catholic exorcists, witch doctors, voodoo priests, etc. casting out demons, primal scream therapy, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, chakra-balancing, Yin-Yang, aromatherapy and National Socialism. You gotta draw the line somewhere, and that line needs to be stuff called or referred to as Conversion Therapy (and that may include Reparative Therapy). Mish (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't it the case that the way articles should develop, is that when an aspect becomes too large for the page, it is spun off into a new page? We retain links to it from this page. Therefore all the stuff quoted above should be present on this page, some with whole sections and some with sentences or just links. Its impossible to sustain a technical definition of CT, and therefore we must be happy with the fact that a descriptive definition brings greater variety. Hyper3 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To BornGay:
- Please discuss here, not on my Talk page.
- Re: your saying "Please do not continue to edit war over this," why don't you take your own advice? Apparently your idea of my "not continuing to edit war" means "letting BornGay have his way with the article". No deal, no dice. You're clearly trying to assert ownership of the article.
- Re: your comment "There are no sources that support the claim that Aesthetic Realism has anything more than a very minor relevance to the history of conversion therapy." This is patently untrue. You continue to ignore the plethora of sources which show that AR's CT was *highly* visible, promoted on television interviews, two books, a short film, and multiple large ads in the largest newspapers in the U.S. (By the way, good job of ensuring you got the opening comment in the RfC, biasing everyone who visits with your false assertion that AR was only "minor".)
- Re: your comment "Refusing to discuss this is not acceptable, you must respect Wikipedia procedure." How many times have I asked you for a definition of Conversion therapy and for your argument of how AR does not meet that definition? I have tried to get *you* to discuss, but you tend to just ignore, obfuscate, and keep changing your positions (e.g., First you say there are no sources, then when I provide one, your argument against is suddenly different.) My meaning was that until *you* discuss in good faith, then I'm done discussing.
- I reject your spurious suggestion that the topic is inherently undefinable. In any event, it's impossible to have an article on *any* subject unless there's some consensus of what the heck the subject is in the first place.
- Until you provide a definition of CT (which is incorporated into the article) and show how AR does not meet that definition, I don't believe you have any basis for removing AR from the article.
- The best way to resolve this in your favor would be for the article to clearly and unambiguously state, "Conversion therapy is [definition]. It does not include [other definition] such as [Aesthetic Realism and other methods that are not CT]." That assumes that AR would not actually meet the definition of CT. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that it does.
- Your concern that different sources define CT differently can certainly be incorporated into the WP intro. In fact, if you believe that there is significant disagreement over the definition from reliable sources, that *ought* to be in the intro. MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have formatted your post, which is directed to one editor. Please note: this is inappropriate. If you wish to address a comment to BornGay, you should use his talk page. This is not a forum; this is a talk page for discussion on how to improve the attached article. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment: Aesthetic Realism
Should the history section of Conversion therapy include Aesthetic Realism?
Born Gay (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No. There are no sources that support the claim that Aesthetic Realism has anything more than a very minor relevance to the history of conversion therapy. Including the material would violate WP:DUE. It would also potentially open a floodgate to further WP:UNDUE material - about Krafft-Ebing, Charcot, primal scream therapy, the Nazis, Gunter Dorner, and nobody knows what else. There is simply no way that all this material can be included in the history section and it would be absurd to even try, as past discussions here have shown. Born Gay (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If there is no WP:RS that describes this as CT (or RT) then No. If there is, then Yes. My understanding is there is not, so No. Mish (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It may deserve an extremely brief mention because one writer identified as practicing conversion therapy mentions it, but if we include all the disputed material MichaelBluejay wants to include the end result is that the history section would have to be expanded to include all methods of attempting to change homosexuality. I tried the include-everything approach months ago, and eventually realized that it can't be made to work. See talk Archive 8 for the background. My current thoughts are here. Born Gay (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I honestly don't know much about Aesthetic Realism. The current lead says "Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, involves methods intended to convert gay, lesbian and bisexual people to heterosexuality." It is important to be consistent throughout the article. If there are methods intended to convert gay, lesbians and bisexual people to heterosexuality which are not deemed to be a type of conversion therapy, that should be explained. Otherwise, you are misleading the reader. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Explaining this stuff is the point of the terminology section. Including more than the briefest mention of Aesthetic Realism in history would be misleading. Born Gay (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you both, and that used to be in the lead at one point, if I remember right (too late to play hunt the missing information); it needs to be brief. If we start explaining all things that were not conversion therapy, then we would have to include Leucotomy/Lobotomy, Electro-convulsive therapy, Narcotherapy, Surgical castration, Chemical castration, Aversion therapy, Hormone therapy, Rubber bands, and so on, as well. They would be mentioned as part of a brief historical note about the experimental treatments that have not worked and damaged people in the past, but not covered individually; they would be noted as not being conversion therapy. They should be mentioned alongside that they were all dropped because they didn't tend to work and damaged people (i.e., people either ended up so messed-up by the treatment sex was the last thing they were worried about, or they survived and became gay or lesbian). So this historical experimental treatment is in no more in need of its own section than any of those I listed (as these were sanctioned for use in psychiatric departments in the USA and Europe during the third quarter of the twentieth century). While we are at it, perhaps we could say something about CT being the latest in a long line of experimental treatments to 'cure' people who are homosexual, and turn them into people who can play house and make babies in the traditional way? I guess a source would be out there somewhere for that, although without the language I used. Mish (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It is sourced, neutral and clearly relevant. The fact that it is not mentioned by other sources may show that those sources are weak in this respect. In my research capacity I am always finding otherwise good sources lacking important aspects. This is not an argument for excluding sources, just an argument for including more varied sources, and not allowing some sources to rule because they are well thought of by some editors. Hyper3 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It is sourced, neutral, relevant and notable. And importantly, BornGay has never explained why Aesthetic Realism does not meet the definition of Conversion Therapy (much less provided one). (BornGay, please see my comments in the AR section above.) MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're joking. See my section below, Talk:Conversion therapy#Aesthetic Realism take II. Michalbluejay, please see WP:COI. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Jones and Yarhouse
Knulclunk has just made an undoubtedly good faith, but still inappropriate addition to the ex-gay section [28]. It concerns psychologists Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, who in their study of ex-gay movements are absolutely explicit (on page 374) about the fact that they do not consider ex-gay treatments of homosexuality to be a form of conversion therapy and that they regard their study of ex-gay treatment as having no direct relevance to conversion therapy. This material is extremely misleading and must be removed (and note that despite the edit summary used, the addition was not discussed on the talk page first). Born Gay (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This brings us to the point of the entire article structure. Some time ago the article was rewritten to absorb what is often called "reparative therapy" under the umbrella of "conversion therapy", basically treating the the two concepts as synonyms. As pointed out by Born Gay, this does not easily allow a separation between psychological or religious counseling that is chosen by a patient with unwanted homosexual sexual desires form the awful history of forced therapy that is usually associated with "conversion therapy". Suggestions?--Knulclunk (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing you say makes your addition relevant or remotely appropriate. You cannot use a source that explicitly and directly states that it is not about conversion therapy to make claims about conversion therapy. No how, no way. Please stop this, because it is utterly misleading and inappropriate. I am going to do everything I can, while remaining within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, to remove that material and keep it out. Born Gay (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since the sourced article is specifically about "reparative therapy" and Wikipedia considers "reparative therapy" and "conversion therapy" the same thing, I don't follow your reasoning...--Knulclunk (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- The title of the article is "Conversion therapy", not reparative therapy. "Wikipedia" has no position on whether reparative therapy or conversion therapy are the same thing. Perhaps you mean that Wikipedia articles contain content about this issue, but that's another matter entirely. And no, the article does not say that reparative therapy and conversion therapy are the same thing - it says they sometimes are used to refer to the same thing, and sometimes they are used differently. Finally, none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand, as the Jones/Yarhouse study is about the ex-gay movement, not reparative or conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please keep this issue separate from the American Medical Consensus section. Reverting that should be done in a different edit, because it's a different issue. Your revert of me there re-introduced an inferior version of that section that uses quotations instead of a proper summary, and which also does not appear to be properly sourced. If a direct quotation were to be used, it should be immediately followed by a source, but that isn't the case in the version you prefer. Born Gay (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Next time, don't add inappropriate and distorted content. In addition to the reasons already given why the Jones/Yarhouse study should not be mentioned here, I question whether that source is reliable enough to use here in the way you're doing. It was published by IVP Academic, which is a division of an explicitly religious publishing house that wouldn't have the same kind of credibility than an ordinary academic publisher would. Born Gay (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Readdition of unused sources by Hyper3
Hyper3 stated in an edit summary, which restored several sources to the bibliography, "Make your case for these being superfluous on the talk page." OK. The reason why these sources are superfluous is because none of them is used to source anything in the article. That means they are not necessary. Born Gay (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Born Gay - we agree on something. I think you are right!!! I am happy for you to remove them. Thanks for waiting for some consensus. Hyper3 (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- One does not ordinarily wait for consensus before making routine edits that should be uncontroversial, even in an article like this. Born Gay (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You have a funny notion of "uncontroversial". Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- One does not ordinarily wait for consensus before making routine edits that should be uncontroversial, even in an article like this. Born Gay (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
NARTH citation in the lead
The statement:
- 1. it is supported by many conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and by the ex-gay movement,[3][4]
is followed by this quote from NARTH:
- 2. who believe that "providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" is appropriate. [5]
This is a problem, because the next quote about NARTH is:
- 3. The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).[7][8]
Here is the problem. 2 relates to 1, but 3 states that 2 is not the same as 1. The quote from NARTH is its position, not the position of "conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups" and/or "the ex-gay movement" - because NARTH is a not a representative of these groups. Using a different citation from NARTH which quotes the chair of the APA (and which is not included in the more recent 2009 position) only applies to psychotherapeutic responses, not Christian and ex-gay groups support for conversion therapy. Mish (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- The sentence "Despite this it is supported by many conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and by the ex-gay movement,[3][4] who believe that "providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" is appropriate" does not seem appropriate to me. It looks like WP:SYNTH, in fact, since the quotation is from NARTH and describes only their view of what they are doing; there is no evidence that it is also the view of the conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and the ex-gay movement. If someone wanted to add statements about what they think or support, they would have to come from them, not NARTH, but adding them would make the lead too long and complicated. In my view the lead was satisfactory before all these changes, and would suggest just reverting it back. Born Gay (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
Two, possibly three, editors have now either stepped over WP:3RR in the past 24 hours or are close to it. I am not going to name them, and I am not going to report them. Despite some attempts to discuss these edits, there has been far more activity on the article than the discussion page. This is a warning - this is not helping the article, and if anybody is trying to read this article, and going back and forth as they follow links, I am sure it is very confusing for them. I have managed to restrain myself mostly (apart from the Ex-gay/NARTH synthesis in the lead). I will continue to do so, unless I notice something ridiculous or faulty going in. If the edit war persists, I will compile a report and submit it, and diff the edits of the three editors involved. I would like to suggest that you cool off by agreeing on a moratorium for 24 hours to demonstrate good faith, and discuss the multiple edits and reversals on the talk page - that is what it is here for. Continuing this way inevitably ends up with people being blocked and creates bad feeling. Mish (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I am trying to be more careful, and I don't think what you're doing is unreasonable. Note, however, that Knulclunk, who has restored the Jones/Yarhouse study multiple times, has simply ignored most of what I've said about it on the talk page, including my explanations of why it is inappropriate here. Based on this behavior, it appears that he or she is going to refuse to engage in further discussion, and will simply go on restoring this grossly misleading content. If my impression is mistaken, is it up to Knulclunk to show it by responding. It would be helpful if you could comment on what I said about the study. Born Gay (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be a sign of good faith if the editor reverted the item he is keen to keep re-inserting. I agree with you, if the authors explicitly say they are not looking at conversion therapy, but ex-gay ministries, and there is nothing to suggest this is about such therapy (i.e., reparative therapy instead), then if it goes anywhere, it should go in the Ex-gay article, not this one, as it is irrelevant - unless their own work directly influenced the development of conversion therapy. I guess from what you are saying it didn't. If we start to include religious ministries as conversion therapy, then we would need to include witch-doctors and ministers casting out evil spirits in Africa - I don't think that is the way to go really. Mish (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is the main problem with including the study here (not the fact that it's written by people who are in favour of converting gay people to heterosexuality - I believe in trying to edit in a neutral way, and would not exclude something for that reason). Jones and Yarhouse directly state that their study wasn't about conversion therapy and that its relevance to conversion therapy was limited at best. They did not claim to have proven anything about conversion therapy; including it here makes it look as though they did and misrepresents the study's purpose. Knulclunk has ignored this. In addition, this may not be a sufficiently reliable source for this purpose, as it was published by a religious press, not a conventional academic one. Born Gay (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly some kind of compromise could be worked out here, but I am not sure it would work. The only way this study could be mentioned in the ex-gay section in a way that wasn't misleading would be to explain that Jones and Yarhouse did not consider ex-gay treatment a kind of conversion therapy, and that they concluded that their results might possibly have some limited and indirect relevance to conversion therapy. It might look rather odd, though, and I'm not sure that it would meet due weight. Born Gay (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are sufficient sources that describe ex-gay ministries as a form of conversion therapy for NPOV and due weight to require some basic information about them here, less than would go in the ex-gay article, but much more than simply a single sentence. It's true that some of Jones and Yarhouse's sources regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy, but they don't. There is no justification for representing a study that stated it wasn't about conversion therapy as being about conversion therapy, so the material would have to be rewritten if it were to be included here at all, which it probably shouldn't be. Born Gay (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the contested section back to its stable state. Let's continue discussion here on the talk page!--Knulclunk (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- It never had a stable state. You've again removed properly sourced content without a good reason; I've restored it. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that if your content gets removed, the other guy's content gets removed too. Born Gay (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we are going to talk about ex-gay groups, we need to talk about ex-gay groups as a whole, whether the specific source defines them as a conversion therapy group or not. So either we don't talk about ex-gay groups at all, or we include all sourced material about ex-gay groups, giving weight to official reports by the APA. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The ex-gay material here needs to be carefully limited to what is actually relevant to conversion therapy, and the descriptions of it should be taken from sources that regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy, not from those that don't. I agree now that the material sourced to Haldeman's essay does need to be rewritten somewhat. I agree in principle with what Mish was trying to do with her edits there, though personally I would use a slightly different wording. Born Gay (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll repeat what I just said further up the page: I did suggest we discuss the changes one by one, and I for one do not have the time to engage with them all at the same time. Can I suggest you do this - go through each change, one by one, to give other editors time to respond - rather than chucking everything in the pot all at once. By all means, if you can improve upon my efforts textually, do so. Mish (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- My view is that the wording should make clear that the description of ex-gay treatment is Haldeman's view; that was the key change required. I'm not going to try to change the wording of that section right away. By the way, if you're wondering why I wasn't more specific about which ex-gay leaders were disgraced and involved in sex scandals, that's partly because Haldeman gets one name wrong, and I believe we need to show discretion and ethical care, and not give a wrong name. Born Gay (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Born gay said "the descriptions of it should be taken from sources that regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy". That is ridiculous. That is like saying the only information in the section on Freud has to describe his work as conversion therapy. The new APA paper might not describe ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, but it doesn't say that it isn't conversion therapy either. When reading a section on ex-gay groups in an article on conversion therapy, a reader would expect to get an accurate depiction of the medical view of ex-gay groups in relation to conversion therapy. To only include negative sources, because they specifically refer to them as conversion therapy, and exclude positive sources, because they refer to them as SOCE, is dishonest, manipulative and POV. The section as a whole needs to be neutral, and all reliable sources can be used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- In a section on ex-gay groups in an article on conversion therapy, it is quite reasonable that the information about them should be taken primarily from sources that actually regard them as conversion therapy. Other sources can be used too, carefully and judiciously, but there is no need to add anything that conclicts with or contradicts what the main sources state. The new APA report does not deal with ex-gay groups in relation to conversion therapy, and the Jones/Yarhouse book is not a fully reliable source anyway. Your point about Freud is hardly relevant. Regarding your comments about me being "dishonest, manipulative and POV", please see WP:NPA. Born Gay (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why this section is still as it is. This is a POV essay by a dubious source about the evils of Ex-gay ministry that notes multiple unrelated factors of a single example taken more than a decade ago. Several editors have questioned its appropriateness. Attempts to remove by any editor it or even modify its wording has been met immediate reverting by the original contributor. Any attempts to offer equally sourced paragraphs is also met with immediate reverting by the original contributor. Who, while defending the edit on the talk page, still has continually broken WP:3RR. I suppose we can remove the entire Ex-gay section, as it is not really very helpful right now.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your understanding of what "POV" means is incorrect, presumably because you don't understand WP:NPOV. Views from reliable sources, which includes Gonsiorek and Weinrich's book, are not considered unacceptable "POV." They are appropriate material. The book's being more than a decade old does not make it unacceptable as a source, in fact, as one of the earliest sources on conversion therapy, it's an ideal starting point, though I agree that we should be careful about how the material is presented. It does not surprise me that "several editors" have questioned its appropriateness. You are all wrong, and you are no less wrong because there are "several" of you. I've explained already why Jones/Yarhouse does not belong here. Removing the section is without justification. Born Gay (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Knulclunk's point of view is not NPOV because it isn't your POV? The article should equally reflect all point of views, not just yours. You keep acting like you own this article. We don't have to get stuff run by you in order to make any changes. We are not questioning Gonsiorek and Weinrich. We are questioning the way it is presented. Ex-gay groups have lots of benefits acknowledged by several mainstream medical organizations. To focus exclusively on the negative given by one author and by refusing to allow any other source be added is enforcing your point of view. This section should be a summary of the main article. There is no reason why the new APA findings cannot be included in there. If ex-gays are considered conversion therapy, then we should accurately summarize ex-gays. If not, we should take out the whole section. The argument that the only source that can be admitted is one that shows it in a negative light because it specifically refers to it as a conversion therapy is a ridiculous argument and does not stand. We will work on making the section NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, to you own argument that nothing should be added until it passes a consensus on the talk page, I am removing it until a consensus can be reached. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is the wrong way to go about it. It should be reverted back to the original version, and as the action is removal, that then needs discussing. What you are doing is still edit warring. I have asked the page to be protected, as clearly none of the editors here are capable of leaving material alone while it is discussed - and that makes the job harder (i.e. multiple editors hitting several moving targets). I have done this because it would be very difficult to single out one editor for edit warring when several are involved.Mish (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have reconsidered what I said following BornGay's response to me. This section should not be a summary, and I will explain why. You seem to equate Ex-gay with conversion therapy, but that is not the case. Conversion therapy exists independently of the Ex-gay movement, but SOME Ex-gay groups advocate it. They do not undertake is, because they are not therapists, they are support groups. The only aspect of the Ex-gay article (which is not NPOV in the way it deals with the topic) that is relevant is the section on Conversion therapy (because only some advocate this), but that is a brief account of CT. There would be no point putting that here, as we cover it in more detail, and there would be no point summarising Ex-gay as most of it is irrelevant to this article. All that needs doing is saying what it is, what the problems or benefits with them are according to relevant sources (APA, etc.), and the level of engagement with CT. Notable psychologists who have undertaken studies, even critically, of Ex-gay in relation to CT would be relevant. You have no right removing it. Mish (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to get it pretty much to the version before people started messing with it. It is now exact.[29] You misunderstand my objection. First of all, I have a right to remove it because on this page we seek consensus before making contentious additions. Born Gay did not seek this consensus. Until the consensus is achieved, it should not be put back in. Second, I have never said that the source is irrelevant. My argument is that the way it was written was POV. You state that the other sources cannot be included because not all ex-gay groups advocate it. The way it was written was not clear. It seemed to be a statement on all ex-gay groups. If you have a problem with the way the ex-gay page is written, the place to raise the objection would be on the ex-gay page, not here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, to you own argument that nothing should be added until it passes a consensus on the talk page, I am removing it until a consensus can be reached. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- One way of possibly resolving this is via search in scholar: "Google Scholar aims to sort articles the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each article, the author, the publication in which the article appears, and how often the piece has been cited in other scholarly literature. The most relevant results will always appear on the first page." On the first page, 8/10 relate to CT as we understand it [30]. The first ten papers are:
- Are you saying that Knulclunk's point of view is not NPOV because it isn't your POV? The article should equally reflect all point of views, not just yours. You keep acting like you own this article. We don't have to get stuff run by you in order to make any changes. We are not questioning Gonsiorek and Weinrich. We are questioning the way it is presented. Ex-gay groups have lots of benefits acknowledged by several mainstream medical organizations. To focus exclusively on the negative given by one author and by refusing to allow any other source be added is enforcing your point of view. This section should be a summary of the main article. There is no reason why the new APA findings cannot be included in there. If ex-gays are considered conversion therapy, then we should accurately summarize ex-gays. If not, we should take out the whole section. The argument that the only source that can be admitted is one that shows it in a negative light because it specifically refers to it as a conversion therapy is a ridiculous argument and does not stand. We will work on making the section NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy, DC Haldeman - Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and …, 2003 - Columbia University Press
- (Cited by 169)
- Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination, DC Haldeman - Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, 1991
- (Cited by 55)
- Treating the purple menace: Ethical considerations of conversion therapy and affirmative alternatives, EE Tozer, MK McClanahan - The counseling psychologist, 1999 - tcp.sagepub.com
- (Cited by 53)
- Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy, J Nicolosi, AD Byrd, RW Potts - Psychological Reports, 2000
- (Cited by 34)
- Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives, A Shidlo, M Schroeder, J Drescher - 2001 - eric.ed.gov
- (Cited by 27)
- Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy, DC Haldeman - PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH, 2002
- (Cited by 36)
- Identity Development Why Do Individuals Seek Conversion Therapy?: The Role of Religiosity, Internalized Homonegativity, EE Tozer, JA Hayes - The counseling psychologist, 2004
- (Cited by 26)
- Mormon Clients’ Experiences of Conversion Therapy: The need for a new treatment approach, AL Beckstead, SL Morrow - The Counseling Psychologist, 2004
- (Cited by 29)
- Conversion therapies for same-sex attracted clients in religious conflict: Context, SL Morrow, AL Beckstead - The Counseling Psychologist, 2004
- (Cited by 16)
- The pseudo-science of sexual orientation conversion therapy, D Haldeman - The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian …, 1999
- (Cited by 16)
One paper by Gonsiorek features on the second page, is not one of the 'top ten' returned, and only has 9 citations:
- Reflections from the Conversion Therapy Battlefield, JC Gonsiorek - The Counseling Psychologist, 2004
- (Cited by 9)
Which suggests it is a poor source when compared to Drescher, Shidlo, et al. Mish (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, my comment was not about sources, but why a summary of the ex-gay page would be irrelevant, as only material that relates to this article would be relevant, and there is too little detail to summarise. I have no intention of wading in on the ex-gay page, it is a WP:SOAP. Mish (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The APA source about ex-gay says this (immediately after the bit cited) "These individuals and organizations tend to have negative attitudes toward homosexuality that are based in their particular religious perspectives. In general, efforts to change sexual orientation through religious ministries take the approach that sexual orientation can be changed through repentance and faith. In addition, some individuals and groups who promote efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy are also associated with religious perspectives that take a negative attitude toward homosexuality." which seems to clarify what they are and where they sit in relation to CT. This ought to go in, as it is more informative than telling us it is also called 'transformational minstry'. The pamphlet seems to give some clarity about the differences between Ex-gay and CT. Mish (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I do think that the form of the section is better now than what was removed, apart from being completely inaccurate - so I have edited for accuracy. Mish (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Our personal views about whether ex-gay ministries = conversion therapy or not are not relevant. Personally, I agree with Mish that they are not the same; however, I do not think her recent edits to the section have helped clarify things. Some reliable sources equate ex-gay ministries with conversion therapy, some insist they are distinct, and both views have to be presented neutrally; the way that was before was appropriate in terms of WP:NPOV. The sentence stating, "Some ex-gay ministries advocate conversion therapy, while other ex-gay organizations use methods other than conversion therapy of trying to change homosexual sexual orientation" does not explain the conflicting views that exist in reliable sources accurately (it obscures the fact that ex-gay ministries are conversion therapy according to some sources), and nor are the page references right. Page 374 of the Jones and Yarhouse book does clearly support the statement it sources (eg, some sources say ex-gay ministries aren't conversion therapy) in the version I added, but it seems to have nothing to do with the statement it's connected with in Mish's version.
It's ludicrous to say that the ex-gay section here should be a summary of the main article. It can't be, just as the Freud section can't be a summary of Sigmund Freud's views about homosexuality, as that would include too much material about aspects of Freud's views on homosexuality that don't relate to changing it. The point is to include what is directly relevant. What goes here should depend on what reliable sources that discuss ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy say, which means that there is plenty of material (including Jones/Yarhouse) that would be appropriate to the ex-gay article that isn't appropriate here. Removing the section totally is not appropriate, and looks like an attempt to censor embarrassing material that is not welcomed by a certain POV. I would request replies on my talk page at the moment, as the talk page of this article has become extremely long. I've added a revised version of that section to my sandbox in response to criticism of the older version, and feedback would be helpful. Born Gay (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To respond to Joshuajohanson's question, "Are you saying that Knulclunk's point of view is not NPOV because it isn't your POV?" No, that was not my point - please don't attribute such a childish suggestion to me. My point was that Knulclunk is ignorant of basic Wikipedia policy. I suggest Knulclunk try actually reading WP:NPOV, which states, 'Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV".' Born Gay (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all
Finally an edit I made has lasted twelve hours. After ten days of editing! Thanks for your forbearance. May it last another twelve hours... Hyper3 (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Content
OK, so, before we start hacking away again...
This article is called Conversion therapy, and refers to Reparative therapy. Can we discuss a clear definition of what this article is about, and what is and is not to be covered.
- Conversion therapy
- Reparative therapy
- Ex-gay ministries
- Therapies that pre-date the coinage of the term
Clarifying this, and stating this in the lead, might help to resolve some of the disputed issues.
- We take CT to cover with both issues here (otherwise we would need a separate article for RT). For an individual/organisation to be included, there must be documentary evidence that they claim to be (or are seen as) practicing CT/RT.
- My understanding is that Ex-gay ministries (and religious conservatives) sometimes support CT/RT, so they should only be mentioned briefly in their support of CT/RT, not in context of CT/RT practice.
- Therapists/therapies that pre-date the term should only be included if they have retrospectively been described as CT/RT, or of it has been documented that they have directly influenced contemporary CT/RT.
- This all has to be sourced to relevant reliable sources (reliable books, papers, articles, etc. - rather than promotional websites etc.)
Can we have this discussion before resuming editing, and formulate a statement for the lead that covers this.Mish (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The terms, like all definitions, are slippery, and it will not be possible to put clear boundaries on it. Language develops, is used differently, becomes conflicted (and therefore some try to distance themselves from terms that clearly apply). "Reparative therapy" is an attempt to differentiate from conversion therapy, so that gives us a problem immediately. I think we should not consider "conversion therapy" to be a technical term but a descriptive term used in the context of sexual behaviour change. We should, therefore, allow any attempts to adapt sexual behaviour in the context of a "talking cure" to be described, and all parties who have opinions on it to be represented with due weight, both scientifically and sociologically. Otherwise, the article will need to demerge conversion therapy and reparative therapy... Hyper3 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- They are slippery, so the way we do this is to refer to the best reliable sources, and report what they define it as. If they slip further, then that can be dealt with another time. For now, what we need to do, is look at how it is defined by notable professional associations etc., and recognised professionals who use the term to describe what they do.Mish (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at the book you are suggesting. the problem is that this approach presumes a unitary approach to knowledge; it presumes that we will get better and better at integrating and agreeing what we think about a matter, especially if we tighten up our definitions. Your "best reliable sources" won't be mine. I think that knowledge is not unitary, suffers from all sorts of incommensurable divides, and therefore we have to negotiate across unclear boundaries. If we start with a book like that you suggest, then we will end up with an article like the book. You are never going to convince the Aesthetic Realism chap that his concerns fall outside of this article for example. More to the point, Wikipedia rules don't cover this. As long as editors stick to neutrality, weight and verifiability, it is allowed into the article. Therefore we record opinions that have divergent ethical standpoints; those that believe in a unitary approach to knowledge, and those that believe it is really all about power; those that operate from inside a tradition and those that believe they are using their autonomous rationality. There is no way around this, as this is the state of play within epistemology. Most people are satisfied that foundationalism is dead. In any case, as there is no shortage of paper. Hopefully we are giving people the tools to discover what the debate surrounding the topic is, many possible meanings within the debate, and the fact that like may other debates, it wanders around a number of possible subject areas. This is what I propose as a consensual approach, doomed as it is by what I have just said! Hyper3 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place for a discussion about epistemology. This is an encyclopedia. There are policies and guidelines that guide us in a way we don't need to concern ourselves with philosophical issues that are more relevant to articles in the encyclopedia that deal with those topics. All we need to ask is 'Is Drescher a WP:RS', 'are the APAs WP:RS', 'what is the consensus and what is the minority view', fortunately these questions are easy to answer. Whereas Foucauldian debates about knowledge and power are less easy, and best dealt with on the Michel Foucault article's talk page. Mish (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. OK. I don't think we will agree on a definition. I don't think we need to. Its not really anyone's business to create a definition, because wikipedia is about the wisdom of crowds. We should just stick to the rules, and let anyone play, who can justify that their contribution relates to the topic. It means being less certain that we know the truth, or even that the truth can be known. Hyper3 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place for a discussion about epistemology. This is an encyclopedia. There are policies and guidelines that guide us in a way we don't need to concern ourselves with philosophical issues that are more relevant to articles in the encyclopedia that deal with those topics. All we need to ask is 'Is Drescher a WP:RS', 'are the APAs WP:RS', 'what is the consensus and what is the minority view', fortunately these questions are easy to answer. Whereas Foucauldian debates about knowledge and power are less easy, and best dealt with on the Michel Foucault article's talk page. Mish (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at the book you are suggesting. the problem is that this approach presumes a unitary approach to knowledge; it presumes that we will get better and better at integrating and agreeing what we think about a matter, especially if we tighten up our definitions. Your "best reliable sources" won't be mine. I think that knowledge is not unitary, suffers from all sorts of incommensurable divides, and therefore we have to negotiate across unclear boundaries. If we start with a book like that you suggest, then we will end up with an article like the book. You are never going to convince the Aesthetic Realism chap that his concerns fall outside of this article for example. More to the point, Wikipedia rules don't cover this. As long as editors stick to neutrality, weight and verifiability, it is allowed into the article. Therefore we record opinions that have divergent ethical standpoints; those that believe in a unitary approach to knowledge, and those that believe it is really all about power; those that operate from inside a tradition and those that believe they are using their autonomous rationality. There is no way around this, as this is the state of play within epistemology. Most people are satisfied that foundationalism is dead. In any case, as there is no shortage of paper. Hopefully we are giving people the tools to discover what the debate surrounding the topic is, many possible meanings within the debate, and the fact that like may other debates, it wanders around a number of possible subject areas. This is what I propose as a consensual approach, doomed as it is by what I have just said! Hyper3 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be wrong to make up our own definition of conversion therapy, or to try to impose a single definition of conversion therapy on the article, when the fact is that there is no one definition. There are several different definitions in reliable sources, and the point of the terminology section is to explain them. The lead starts by explaining something about conversion therapy rather than by defining it, and includes the views of the two different APAs on the subject. Born Gay (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, it is not our definition that matters, it is how it is defined by reliable sources. In some other articles, terms (or phrases) are defined in the first sentence of the lead, and where there are a range of meanings, the various understandings are explained, as detailed in reliable sources as the first paragraph. This would be appropriate for this article, as this could help to define and circumscribe the scope of the article for those who wish to edit the article, and diminish the potential for future misunderstandings. Mish (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD says that, "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific." In this case that is not possible, because of the multiple definitions in sources; giving only one would conflict with NPOV. Fortunately guidelines permit occasional exceptions, and this is a case when an exception is necessary. It's best for the opening sentence to side-step the issue of definition entirely and give the definitions of conversion therapy from reliable sources later in the lead. Born Gay (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think we are agreed here, giving only one would be NPOV, but giving none is clearly problematic, so the better approach in this case would be by exception, and including all the definitions - where I disagree is that this would be better handled as the first paragraph. Mish (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- As long as the present-day inheritors of conversion therapy (reparative therapy, and the like) are noted as a minority position, and we give up trying to call it fringe, I am happy with the current majority view being clearly labelled as so. I know the last part of the sentence is completely obvious, but just so you know. Hyper3 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The overwhelming majority position of all professional bodies (which regard CT as unproven and recommends members neither promote nor engage in). Mish (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not denying that. But the minority position is still alive and well, many people are involved in it, receiving help and saying their has been a change in their sexuality. This page should portray this fact accurately, rather than pretending the debate is over, and everyone agrees. Hyper3 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- The overwhelming majority position of all professional bodies (which regard CT as unproven and recommends members neither promote nor engage in). Mish (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- As long as the present-day inheritors of conversion therapy (reparative therapy, and the like) are noted as a minority position, and we give up trying to call it fringe, I am happy with the current majority view being clearly labelled as so. I know the last part of the sentence is completely obvious, but just so you know. Hyper3 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think we are agreed here, giving only one would be NPOV, but giving none is clearly problematic, so the better approach in this case would be by exception, and including all the definitions - where I disagree is that this would be better handled as the first paragraph. Mish (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Contested material
MishMich and Born Gay have removed material from the article saying that it is contested. I have looked and have not seen it being contested anywhere. Here is the "contested" material:
- "Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed the importance of self-determination for the client, even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy"
- They (Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations) recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation.
- They (Ex-gay groups) help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation.
- A survey of 882 people with unwanted same-sex attractions were asked five questions about their experience with conversion therapy. Most found it was helpful to them psychologically, spiritually, and sexually, and had a significant reduction in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies.
- The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other.
- There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies
- There is extensive debate on the matter. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's being contested here on the talk page. You aren't discussing the specific points of disagreement over this material in a way that would make it possible to respond; much of it was there in the form of direct quotations, but the medical consensus section should not consist of direct quotations, it should be a summary. Please remember to sign your comments. Born Gay (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will try to be better at signing my comments. None of these sentences were direct quotations. Do you have any arguments with any of these statements that you removed? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Include links to older versions of the article if you want to settle what was what. Point to the versions you approve of, say what you liked about them, and I'll respond. Born Gay (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The change that contains most of my issues is this one: [32] I am okay with not quoting Nicolosi in the American medical consensus, but I still think it should be in the studies of conversion therapy. What I liked about them is that had the statements that I listed above, mostly that the consensus emphasizes self-determination, that it accurately states that reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other, and is truthful that there is not sufficient evidence to say for sure that CT is either beneficial or harmful, it includes Nicolosi's study which was printed by the APA and quoted by the ACA, and it does not hide alternative therapies that can be useful for clients seeking to change their sexual orientation identity. It also talks about the mainstream medical view of ex-gay groups, that it helps counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Include links to older versions of the article if you want to settle what was what. Point to the versions you approve of, say what you liked about them, and I'll respond. Born Gay (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will try to be better at signing my comments. None of these sentences were direct quotations. Do you have any arguments with any of these statements that you removed? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll consider the lead first. "Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed the importance of self-determination for the client, even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy." Maybe that should be in the article, but why in the lead? The mainstream view is mainly critical. I think the new APA report is clear on that, and they don't think much of the self-determination argument, either. "They recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation" is something that clearly doesn't belong in the lead - if it's true it's a minor detail that would belong somewhere else. With the ex-gay section: "They help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation" - that doesn't belong there, because it's sourced to the new APA report, and that's about SOCE, not conversion therapy. It has no real relevance, and it's inappropriate for the same reason including Jones and Yarhouse is inappropriate. Born Gay (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the American medical consensus section, "There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies, and there is extensive debate on the matter." The first part of that basically just repeats other things that were already there (such as "The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness"). The second part is irrelevant; the existence of debate is a different issue from the consensus. Debate is not part of a consensus. "Another report indicated that most of the participants found that the therapy was helpful to them, psychologically, spiritually, and sexually" - that part was completely inappropriate, as it wrongly presented Nicolosi as part of the consensus. Born Gay (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Self-determination is a major part of their view points, and is part of their code of ethics. I agree that they are critical of conversion therapy. I'm not arguing that. All I am saying is that the client has the right to determine their own destiny in therapy. I also think it is important to be clear what it is exactly that the medical view objection is critical of. It is specifically critical of conversion therapy, and not with anyone trying to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions. Conversion therapy is ill-defined, as noticed, and since this article includes methods such as ex-gay groups which do not specifically try to change a person's sexual orientation, it is important to be clear on this issue. That is why I wanted to include "They recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation." That makes it clear that the disagreement is specifically with conversion therapy and there other related therapies that would be more appropriate. It is perfectly reasonable for an article on a medical treatment to discuss alternative treatments for the same condition, especially with an ill-defined topic which some readers may erroneously believe is more comprehensive than it actually is. It needs to be clear that there are suitable treatments that are not viewed critically by the medical department. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is there extensive debate? As far as I can tell, most professionals dismiss it, and a few promote it, and while there is much lobbying and positioning, there's little debate. Then, "even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy" - even is a word that alarms me when I see it, as it has a ring of POV about it for some reason. This sentence seems synthetic, and I am not averse to saying something, but would prefer it is more accurate and less weasely. The self-determination is important, but if we are making a point of that, it needs to be qualified as per the source - in the context of freedom from social, family, peer pressure, etc. This is where you run into a problem. To balance the statements as per WP:NPOV, you need to expand the content significantly to accurately report what the APA actually said, and that may well be undue for the lead, as it is about CT, not the APA's position on SOCE in detail. Mish (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The source says there is an extensive debate. It says "Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media." I understand that the debate does not belong in the consensus. Where does it belong? Can we write a new section about the debate? There used to be a debate section [33] Born Gay said it was poorly written. Can we improve it and have a debate section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy for that. Maybe the debate in the media? That seems to be where much of this sort of thing takes place. Mish (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is a need for a separate section on debate in professional literature. Some of the content in the debate section Joshuajohanson linked to should perhaps be restored, but as part of Studies of Conversion therapy, rather than as its own section. Born Gay (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the literature is best dealt with in Studies, but that this should be expanded to incorporated other academic writing (i.e., not just studies, but analyses and commentaries), That leaves the debate in the media, which is significant because what is actually quite an insignificant topic (given the small number of people who try to change their sexual orientation) has achieved wider coverage through the media (often in relation to the lobbying of Christian groups being disseminated through promotional outlets). Mish (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is a need for a separate section on debate in professional literature. Some of the content in the debate section Joshuajohanson linked to should perhaps be restored, but as part of Studies of Conversion therapy, rather than as its own section. Born Gay (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy for that. Maybe the debate in the media? That seems to be where much of this sort of thing takes place. Mish (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The source says there is an extensive debate. It says "Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media." I understand that the debate does not belong in the consensus. Where does it belong? Can we write a new section about the debate? There used to be a debate section [33] Born Gay said it was poorly written. Can we improve it and have a debate section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is there extensive debate? As far as I can tell, most professionals dismiss it, and a few promote it, and while there is much lobbying and positioning, there's little debate. Then, "even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy" - even is a word that alarms me when I see it, as it has a ring of POV about it for some reason. This sentence seems synthetic, and I am not averse to saying something, but would prefer it is more accurate and less weasely. The self-determination is important, but if we are making a point of that, it needs to be qualified as per the source - in the context of freedom from social, family, peer pressure, etc. This is where you run into a problem. To balance the statements as per WP:NPOV, you need to expand the content significantly to accurately report what the APA actually said, and that may well be undue for the lead, as it is about CT, not the APA's position on SOCE in detail. Mish (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Self-determination is a major part of their view points, and is part of their code of ethics. I agree that they are critical of conversion therapy. I'm not arguing that. All I am saying is that the client has the right to determine their own destiny in therapy. I also think it is important to be clear what it is exactly that the medical view objection is critical of. It is specifically critical of conversion therapy, and not with anyone trying to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions. Conversion therapy is ill-defined, as noticed, and since this article includes methods such as ex-gay groups which do not specifically try to change a person's sexual orientation, it is important to be clear on this issue. That is why I wanted to include "They recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation." That makes it clear that the disagreement is specifically with conversion therapy and there other related therapies that would be more appropriate. It is perfectly reasonable for an article on a medical treatment to discuss alternative treatments for the same condition, especially with an ill-defined topic which some readers may erroneously believe is more comprehensive than it actually is. It needs to be clear that there are suitable treatments that are not viewed critically by the medical department. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the American medical consensus section, "There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies, and there is extensive debate on the matter." The first part of that basically just repeats other things that were already there (such as "The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness"). The second part is irrelevant; the existence of debate is a different issue from the consensus. Debate is not part of a consensus. "Another report indicated that most of the participants found that the therapy was helpful to them, psychologically, spiritually, and sexually" - that part was completely inappropriate, as it wrongly presented Nicolosi as part of the consensus. Born Gay (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
On the issue of whether there is extensive debate, I suggest you look at this article in the Guardian (UK) British therapists still offer treatments to 'cure' homosexuality which records that out of 1300 therapists, 55 were offering treatments for homosexuality, and 200 had attempted to change at least one person's sexual orientation. Its still a live issue in the UK amongst professionals. Hyper3 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The existence of extensive debate within the professional literature is sourced. Born Gay, where can I put that information? You saying I can't put it in the consensus and I can't have a separate section doesn't answer my question. Where can I put it? Also, since no one has objected to the statement "The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other", I'm putting it back in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The report in the Guardian shows that less than 5% of professionals actively offer this type of therapy, and of the 200 who have tried it at leas once, only 25% of them still offer it. That says nothing about a significant debate, it suggests that most therapists have little time for it, as reflected in statements by organisations like the BPS. As I said previously, this says more about the debate in the media. Mish (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that broadening the Studies of conversion therapy section, as Mish suggested, would be a good idea. To reply to Joshuajohanson: any published studies of or about conversion therapy should go in the Studies section; they shouldn't be a separate section. A section on media debate or controversy might be a good idea, but should be kept strictly separate from the academic stuff. Born Gay (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Replying to MishMich - you are implying a debate exists when there is equal support on both sides. A debate exists whilst there are still people to argue about it! For the sake of wikipedia, a discussion between majority and minority viewpoints is still a notable debate. The Wellcome Trust has put a lot of effort into launching a new website on the matter - this is still alive issue. Hyper3 (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe it should be excluded, but handled for what it is, a minority view. That means it is not the consensus - the consensus is that it is a crock of shit. It gets dealt with as a minority view, and as such the coverage needs to be weighted to reflect this - coverage mainly about the majority view (i.e. the consensus), with a small amount on the minority view. This seems to have been about right, but recent edits and insertions have unbalanced the coverage in a way that do not accurately reflect this. Putting stuff in the consensus about views that are not part of the consensus not only unbalances the article, it renders it inaccurate. Mish (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Brill
In the Brill section, what does incorrectly mean here? "...the development of sexual attraction to the same sex was always related to narcissism, which he incorrectly defined as love for one‘s self"--Knulclunk (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Incorrectly" applies to Brill's understanding of the psychoanalytic concept of narcissism. He did not understand what it meant correctly. Born Gay (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
We need to be trying a different approach
It has becoming increasingly disgusting to me to watch the squabbling (which granted, I've participated in) over the American medical consensus section. That section is going to go on being contested, with edits modifying it back and forth without a stable solution, until it's re-organized in some sensible way. An especially awful example of bad content there is the statement, added by Joshuajohanson, that, "The evidence of cures of harm counterbalance each other." That piece of nonsense, which seems to imply that the idea that conversion therapy can cure homosexuality and the idea that it can't are equally valid, is apparently meant to be based upon the American Psychiatric Association's statement that, "Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." Note the key word "anecdotal." The APA is being careful to refer to "anecdotal" reports so that no one gets the idea that it's real, scientifically valid evidence we're talking about - yet that wrong impression is exactly the one Joshuajohanson's wording leaves the reader with. The solution to this is not to have a direct quotation, which simply looks silly, but to reorganize "Medical, scientific and legal views" so that there are separate sections for the views of the American Psychiatric Association, and the other organizations. We don't need to attribute everything the American Psychiatric Association or any other one group says to the "consensus." Let the views of each organiztion be described separately in their own sections, with an appropriate summary for each that avoids the type of misleading rubbish that's there now. Born Gay (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't read your mind, Born Gay, though I am learning. I brought this up several times on the talk page and you said nothing. I thought it was clear that it only applied to anecdotal evidence, since there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating harmfulness. I am trying to add that material in a way that is non-contentious. I have changed the edit to hopefully reflect that the evidence is indeed anecdotal. Hopefully that will suffice until we can reach some consensus on how to reorganize the consensus section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- It should not be there at all. Not in the form of a direct quotation, not in the form of a misleading and distorted summary, and not even in the form of an accurate summary. It is a statement by a particular organization that represents the view of that organization, and there is not sufficient justification for including it in a "consensus" section unless it can be shown that all the other organizations have exactly the same position. The fact that the ethics guidelines of the various organizations are dealt with separately shows that there are differences of nuance between them, even though they share many positions in common. The different positions of individual organizations on other matters should likewise be dealt with in separate sections for each organization, and the "consensus" material should be strictly limited to statements that it can be demonstrated that all organizations fully agree upon. Born Gay (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that is the approach you want to take, then that is fine. It will take some work to describe the views of each organization in their own section. When that is finished, then I will be more than happy to move that quote into there, but not until then. Using that requirement, much of the third paragraph should also be moved into another section. At least it came from a medical organization rather than individual authors. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad that discussion seems to be producing at least some agreement. I am not sure what to do about the third paragraph - part of it is sourced to things I don't have access to. I don't find it difficult to look up books or things on the net, but journal articles are a different matter. Born Gay (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that is the approach you want to take, then that is fine. It will take some work to describe the views of each organization in their own section. When that is finished, then I will be more than happy to move that quote into there, but not until then. Using that requirement, much of the third paragraph should also be moved into another section. At least it came from a medical organization rather than individual authors. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- It should not be there at all. Not in the form of a direct quotation, not in the form of a misleading and distorted summary, and not even in the form of an accurate summary. It is a statement by a particular organization that represents the view of that organization, and there is not sufficient justification for including it in a "consensus" section unless it can be shown that all the other organizations have exactly the same position. The fact that the ethics guidelines of the various organizations are dealt with separately shows that there are differences of nuance between them, even though they share many positions in common. The different positions of individual organizations on other matters should likewise be dealt with in separate sections for each organization, and the "consensus" material should be strictly limited to statements that it can be demonstrated that all organizations fully agree upon. Born Gay (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of ex-gay treatment must not be removed
Joshuajohanson has recently removed all criticism of ex-gay treament from the ex-gay section. This edit[34], like the similar edits performed by Hyper3 ([35] and [36]), is unacceptable for several reasons. Neutral point of view requires that the extensive criticism of ex-gay treatment by published scholars and mainstream scientific organizations be represented here, and the principles that NPOV, and the related key policies of no original research and verifiability, are based upon, and which require fair treatment of all significant views, cannot be over-riden by consensus. And while there may be a group of editors here (consisting of Joshuajohanson, Knulclunk, and Hyper3) who don't like seeing ex-gay treatment criticized and want the criticism gone, you do not form a consensus by yourselves, and your not liking the criticism is not a reason why it should be removed. While the three of you can contest the criticism as much as you like, there is no basis in the content policies for keeping it out.
Many of the arguments that the editors on that side have offered have been preposterous. Knulclunk's complaints that the criticism is based upon a "POV" essay show a basic misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which states that "Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'", thus contradicting his position. Hyper3's comments in an edit summary that we should, "Take out "attack" aspects, and choose better studies, exemplary of their positions and with due weight", are likewise misinformed. He appears to thinks that only ex-gay studies that have not been demolished by scholarly criticism, as the Pattison's study was demolished, should be mentioned in the article, which reflects such a gross misunderstanding of NPOV as to require little comment. It is questionable whether there are any good ex-gay studies, so his comment betrays a lack of understanding of conversion therapy itself, as well as the content policies. Those ex-gay studies that might possibly be better than the study done by the Pattisons, like the Jones and Yarhouse study, are not within the scope of the article. Fortunately, judging from other comments here, a larger number of editors accept that criticism in some form is necessary. There may be disagreements over the details or the precise wording that should be used, but given that most of the opinions here have supported criticism, I am going to add some in a revised form.
In reply to Joshuajohanson's claim that my position that sources (such as the new APA report) that do not identify ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy should not be used to back up statements about ex-gay treatment is indefensible, I would observe that it's not such a simple issue. I am not absolutely sure that the new APA report should not be used as a source for the ex-gay section, but nor am I yet convinced that it should be. I would suggest a careful re-reading of WP:NOR, which states that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Since the new APA report is about SOCE, rather than conversion therapy, it does not relate directly to the subject of this article. If you want to properly source the kind of statements you want to add to that section, you would probably need other sources in addition to the APA report. While this issue may be disputed, WP:NOR is clear that one cannot use a source contrary to the intention of its authors, so the Jones/Yarhouse study, which directly states it isn't about conversion therapy, definitely cannot be used here in that manner. Born Gay (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, just because the Ex-gay article lacks such criticism is not a reason for such criticism being excised here - especially of the source relates to the article topic in conjunction with ex-gay ministries. I also agree that the recent report by the APA cannot be used in this way under this section - it goes to some pains to refer to ex-gay as distinct from conversion therapy, as it only refers to ex-gay support groups, ex-gay groups, ex-gay religious ministries, ex-gay ministries. Placing the recent APA source as relating to ex-gay ministries would be WP:SYNTH. Mish (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be criticism of ex-gay SOCE. I don't like the particular source that Born Gay is using, because it focusses on impropriety, something that happens everywhere. I don't mind impropriety being mentioned (because, quite correctly, it is Christians who are claiming propriety, and I understand it is necessary to expose hypocrisy). We should choose a better example that is just as clearly critical. There should also be a pro ex-gay study, like Yarhouse, and then there should be some work to make sure due weight is in favour of the critical.Hyper3 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hyper3 is correct. The problem with the criticism that was being used focused on the impropriety of a small group. Examples of impropriety are universal. A broader study showing false assumptions of the ex-gay movement would be acceptable. Even better though, are sources expressing social concerns over the promotion of ex-gay ministry from both scientific and activist sources, as long as we note them as such. With this should be a definition of who supports ex-gay ministries and why. It is appropriate to explain that supporters of ex-gay ministry usually do not define there mission as "conversion therapy" from homosexual to heterosexual. But, to discuss ex-gay without acknowledging its supporters is misleading and disingenuous.
- I disagree with Hyper3's desire for to expose hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is also universal and the need to play "gotcha" with Christians (even when they are claiming propriety) is unseemly. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it is not the hypocrisy that is at issue, it is the lack of professionalism. If it is documented, and relevant, it stays in. Mish (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we took the view that "If it is documented, and relevant, it stays in" then much reverted editing would still be in the article. Giving undue weight to one view by quoting scandal, and then not including other views is problematic. From the above, we could agree a version of this section in a second if the references to impropriety were removed, and other equally relevant and critical sources included, together with the Yarhouse material. Hyper3 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it is not the hypocrisy that is at issue, it is the lack of professionalism. If it is documented, and relevant, it stays in. Mish (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Aesthetic Realism take II
Moved from article:
- The Aesthetic Realism Foundation conducted therapy sessions from 1971 to 1990 to try to help gays become straight. They published two books[1][2] and one short film on the subject[3], and purchased ads in major newspapers promoting their supposed success.[4] in 1990 the Foundation stopped offering its treatment, citing the spirit of anger surrounding the subject that it didn't wish to be involved with[5], though critics contend that the Foundation was forced to abandon their program because it wasn't working.[4]
To begin with, the linked Aesthetic Realism Foundation does not remotely describe the organization discussed here, so that needs to go. The only critical source is a cult-outing site, and while I have no doubt that ARF was a cult, this is not the best sourcing. The other source is a promotional site by the Executive Director (founder?), self described as a "consultant and poet" - completely inappropriate as a source. I'd prefer to see that this was more mainstream, and had at least some significant impact - and some better sourcing. Did this poet have any coverage by anyone remotely neutral and a significant RS? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to repeat my suggestion for handling this in a more modest way:
- Aesthetic Realism's conversion therapy was mostly in the '70s and '80s, so I'm thinking that this could go just after the Primal Scream material. Something like, "Other notable non-medical therapies that promised change included Aesthetic Realism and vegetotherapy."
- I think it's worth including, but it doesn't need a whole paragraph. Also, we shouldn't use self-published sources. Will Beback talk 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then find a neutral source, not a self published one. That's the point, Wil. There is nothing else. Two self published sources. In which case, no we don't include it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
references
- ^ The H Persuasion: How Persons Have Permanently Changed from Homosexuality through the Study of Aesthetic Realism with Eli Siegel (1971), Sheldon Kranz (ed.), Definition Press
- ^ The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality (1986)
- ^ [http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/411076 Yes We Have Changed (1982)
- ^ a b Aesthetic Realism's “cure” for homosexuality (April 2009, accessed September 6, 2009)
- ^ The Lie about How Aesthetic Realism Sees Homosexuality, Margot Carpenter (accessed September 6, 2009)
Replies to born Gay
Please use this page - we all have to see the different threads to understand what is going on.
Please stop trying to control what I add or not. If its notable, sourced and shows due weight then leave it. No one owns the article. Some description of what Conversion therapists think they are doing is necessary. The quote should come form their own mouths, but I have sourced something from an APA official (reported by NARTH) to satisfy the most stringent demands, or at least I thought I had!
Have you read my comment on AR? Sources are not perfect, need to fulfil their own agenda and often fail to be comprehensive. There is something here that needs to find its place. There is no shortage of paper, and if we need to we can include everything by spinning off new pages.
You are defining the page as being about conversion therapy but not SOCE, when one is a description of the other. You have no right to control the definition of the page in a strict way of your own making. Wikipedia is about the wisdom of crowds, not experts who split hairs. Edit on scholarpedia if that is what you want. Hyper3 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)