Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

rewriting history: the attempts of Aesthetic Realists to whitewash their organization's history of ex-gay therapy

On February 21, User:LoreMariano removed a long-standing category without consensus (the category had been recently reworded from "Changing sexuality " to "Sexual orientation change efforts"). This was reverted fairly quickly; since then Nathan43 has been edit warring in an effort to reinstate the removal. The category is clearly appropriate, as demonstrated even in this AR-friendly rewritten article, and this effort by members/followers/etc. of AR to whitewash their acknowledged history need to stop. - Outerlimits (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-reversions

I'd like to comment on something that I have been silent about up till now. Going through the revision history of the article, I noticed that LoreMariano reverted her own edit back and forth no less than six times. See this edit, and the five edits after it. I can understand someone making an edit, and then in good faith changing their mind and reverting it, but to revert oneself six times over just seems very strange. Frankly, it looks more like the behavior of someone who is playing with an article than that of someone who is trying to contribute in good faith. In plain language, it's vandalism. LoreMariano, could you please stop doing that, and promise not to do it in future? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it looks moronic. Unfortunately, I was in a location where I kept losing my connection. I inadvertently "undid" my own reverts. Apologies to everyone for causing confusion about it. LoreMariano (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. I withdraw the accusation of vandalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass reverting

LoreMariano recently reverted all my edits to this article without explanation. The user left a bizarre message on my talk page claiming that all edits to the article need to be discussed first. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. No one needs prior discussion to make changes, particularly not where minor and uncontroversial edits are concerned. Many of my changes concerned basic matters of grammar and punctuation, and it was highly inappropriate to revert them. I consider such reverts to be little better than vandalism. It was equally inappropriate, or perhaps still more inappropriate, to restore unsourced, obviously controversial material such as the following: "Some men who began to study to change from homosexuality discontinued their study. Others, who at one time stated they had changed, later decided to live a gay lifestyle. Still others indicate that the change from homosexuality they first experienced in the 1970s and 80s is authentic and continues to the present day." Perhaps LoreMariano is not aware of basic policies such as WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV? That restored text seems to violate both of them. I ask other editors to take a look at this situation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the unfortunate facts about this article is that Siegel's followers will tolerate no changes in their preferred text. They monitor the article and revert changes on sight; if anyone wants to continue to butt their head against their ownership of the article they call in reinforcements from among their group of fellow Aesthetic Realists. Your changes were certainly well considered, but they won't like them for several reasons. [1] If you refer to the founder as "Siegel" instead of "Eli Siegel", as our manual of style requires, they will feel you are giving their leader insufficient respect, and feel it is their duty to resist that change. [2] the followers of Aesthetic Realism speak in a peculiar, stylized, stilted and formulaic idiom. (This is where phrases like "Other former students say it is nothing of the kind", or the labeling of their efforts to change sexual orientation as a "change from homosexuality", and the ritualistic quoting of tangentially related writings of Siegel come from.) If you don't state things in their terms, they will feel *you* are not giving Aesthetic Realism sufficient "respect", and will marshal their forces to resist you. (I suppose we should count ourselves lucky they don't require us to refer to homosexuality as the "H persuasion!") And lastly, [3] if you make changes that correctly label the beliefs of Siegel and his merry troupe as their beliefs rather than eternal truths, as our neutral point of view policy requires, they will put out the word that their fellow "students" must come here at once to ensure that you do not succeed. Sadly, I feel trying to make this article accurate and fair is probably a fool's errand. What you see is the best we could do. Expect to be told that your understanding of NPOV is hopelessly flawed; true neutrality consists of worshiping every word spoken by Siegel, and denigrating anyone who does not. Actual NPOV policy would dictate that Siegel's assertion that change of sexual preferences was possible (a WP:FRINGE point of view) be counterbalanced by a firm statement of the mainstream belief that such change is not possible. (Something like "A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be harmful," from our ex-gay article.) But you can count on the cohort of Aesthetic Realists who watch this article with religious fervor to rally their forces to prevent such facts from being included here. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Then report them on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. WP:Battle is not allowed. Cavann (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it to be highly disturbing that unsourced text claiming that some people have successfully changed their sexual orientation through Aesthetic Realism can be restored to an article. I'm going to see what can be done about this (and the borderline-vandalism reverting of corrections to basic grammar), including maybe taking this to the neutral point of view noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey folks, Cavann was correct that any unsourced content can be removed--that's very much what verifiability requires. It's often courteous to provide other editors an opportunity to provide such a source, but it's not required: the burden is on those who want to include the content to provide a reliable source.
• On the subject of discussing things first, there is no policy that requires it. However, if substantial changes are reverted, best practice is to then bring the discussion up on the talk page. I would recommend you try to follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle, which is essentially a one-revert approach; it's especially useful for controversial articles.
• I don't see why minor changes to spellling, grammar, and/or punctutation would require extensive discussion first, provided they don't meaningfully change the content. On that point, encyclopedic writing should use common, clear terminology and avoid jargon where possible.
• There has been extensive discussion over the years at this article. It would probably be helpful to look at it. That said, prior consensus doesn't mean changes can't be made. Articles change over time to best reflect the provided sources.
• I'd encourage all participants to remember that nobody owns a Wikipedia article and all issues are up for discussion insofar as sources support suggestions. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor changes to spellling, grammar, and/or punctuation do not require prior discussion at all. That is not the way things are supposed to work here. The fact is, much of the grammar of this article, and some of the punctuation, was simply wrong. And now it is wrong once again, because LoreMariano decided to revert all my changes. Not only is much of this article very poorly written (as Outerlimits notes above), some of it is so bad that it's almost incomprehensible. For example, this in the lead: "And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: 'All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.'" The first part of that is not only obviously ungrammatical, but also virtually gibberish. I corrected it to something comprehensible; LoreMariano un-corrected it. What possible justification could there be for such behavior? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is my personal speculation, but as a philosohphy predicated on aesthetics, I believe folks affiliated with Aesthetic Realism may have a particular attatchment to certain phrasings. It may not always be apparent to them that some common internal language does not fit in an encyclopedic tone or sound natural compared to common encycopedic writing. Please try not to get too frustrated, there's more accomplished with patience and good faith and concrete explanations. I suggest trying your changes again, but perhaps in smaller chunks. That's usually an easy way back into dialogue. Then if there are specific issues they can be discussed individually.Undoubtedly this takes longer and is less satisfying; controversial articles however often work best when modified in small steps. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with that approach, of course, is that it's what led to the current unfortunate state of the article, which is at least partly a result of your previous efforts here. What's needed is an approach that will lead to better results. Please don't encourage bad behavior by creating a false equivalence of involved parties, or by apologizing for those who are the cause of the problem; there's only one recent editor who's reverted salubrious edits while not explaining those reversions, all while simultaneously encouraging everyone but herself to use the talk page. There's no reason for the Aesthetic Realist folk to think that their peculiar patois is appropriate for an article in the English Wikipedia; rather than telling other editors to permit it, we should explain to those who insert it that it's gibberish and unacceptable here. Unfortunately, cajoling and reasoning requires that opposing parties act in good faith rather than conflict of interest, and be interested in improving the article, capable of discerning its shortcomings, and willing to accept NPOV as the basis of changes. A review of the article's recent history demonstrates that it's only one party that wants unreferenced, non-neutral material inserted. I think it's rather shameful to suggest that FreeKnowledgeCreator work in "smaller chunks": he's already done so; it's LoreMariano that made the large mass reversion. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, can you see the position I'm in? I could try, as you say, to make the same changes again, but if I do, I'm immediately open to the charge of edit warring. If I correct grammar and punctuation, and another editor then decides that they prefer incorrect grammar and punctuation and reverts me, should I then edit war to restore correct English, or should I instead respect Wikipedia's policy against edit warring, and let the article remain ungrammatical? If I correct an incomprehensible passage, and someone decides they prefer the incomprehensible version and reverts me, should I edit war over that too? Saying that I should try to make changes in "smaller chunks" sounds too much like giving LoreMariano an excuse for what she did. She could have considered my changes on a change-by-change basis. She chose not to. There's really no excuse for that. Let it be noted that LoreMariano, in spite of insisting that changes must be discussed on talk, has not even tried to participate in this discussion. That puts the assumption of good faith under strain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Outerlimits, I've consistently tried to mediate fairly here, and respecting both sides does mean they're equally right. There is a battleground mentality at this article that cuts both ways. Also, explaining someone's motivations is not apologizing for them. And recommending smaller changes is standard practice at any controversial article. I recognize that it's frustrating, but that's the nature of controversial topics--they take more time and discussion. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ocaasi, I understand you think you are mediating fairly, and I am trying to point out to you respectfully that I disagree. Treating people who are behaving differently as if they were behaving identically is not a solution, it's a problem. Recommending smaller changes immediately after an editor has made incremental changes in very small edits isn't appropriate, it's insulting. It also suggests you're giving recommendations without actually examining or understanding what's going on. And the issue is not that your advice generates frustration, it's that it has been shown to generate a very bad article. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to minor edits but would like to review them first here on the talk page. Changes that seem minor sometimes change the meaning of a sentence. Of course I'm all for improving grammar.

An example of a "minor" edit that changes the meaning of the sentence is this:

Original: "Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, but other former students say it is nothing of the kind."

Modified: "Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, but others deny this."

It is not clear who the "others" are in the modified version. If you want to change it to:

"...but other former students deny this", I would have no objection to that.

I assure everyone I am in good faith. If I don't respond right away it's because I'm at work and cannot be on Wikipedia or I'm in transit. LoreMariano (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lore, this is a good example of where changes might inadvertently be unclear. However, it still is a little overbroad to revert all such primarily grammatical fixes in one swoop. If there are specific issues you have you could raise them on the talk page, or change back specific pieces instead. Wholesale reverts generally make other editors feel like they are being outright rejected. So, I'd try to zero in on specifics that you don't like next time and permit others to make changes in good faith. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

LoreMariano, you have been asked to explain your reversion of all my edits to the article. In response, you seize upon one small change that you didn't like, and use that as a justification for reverting everything. You are, for what it is worth, quite wrong in suggesting that it is unclear who the "others" are in the modified version of the article. It is perfectly clear from the context that the "others" are the other former students of Aesthetic Realism. If you can't see this, then I'm afraid you simply don't understand how the English language works. Using the expression "former students" twice in one sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence look foolish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you seem to be suggesting that I have a battleground mentality. Why do you suggest that, exactly? You say I should make small changes. I can only reply that that is exactly what I did. As you can see from the edit history of the article, I made a large number of small changes to the article, changes that editors who want to improve it could have considered on a case by case basis. You have given me absolutely no indication of what I could have done differently, or what I should do in future instead. Let me tell you what I'm considering doing. As LoreMariano has made an objection to only one of the changes I made, I'm going to restore my changes. All of them, with the exception of the single detail that she objected to. Her objection was wrong and based on a misunderstanding of English, but nevertheless, I will use her suggested version of that passage in future edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator. To my understanding you've done nothing but edit in good faith. This article has a complex history and I was making a more general statement about the dynamics over many years. Sorry for the inadvertent accusation. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was giving that instance only as an example of why we need to look at each change on a case-by-case basis. I will start making the list today at lunch time. LoreMariano (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just counted the edits of mine that you reverted. There were 38 of them, many of them very minor. Did you actually expect me to discuss each of those 38 edits with you on the talk page before making them? Not only is there no policy that requires that, it's not a reasonable thing to expect. To insist on it looks more like a tactic of obstruction than anything else. As for your list, I will take a look at it and respond shortly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Revisions

Here is a beginning list of edits by FreeKnowledgeCreator for discussion. I bolded changed text (added or deleted) in order to easily identify the changes. LoreMariano (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

From the Victim of the Press section

July 8 edit - citation needed

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1978, ads were placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” They were signed by 50 men and women. With few exceptions, the press in general either ignored or dismissed the assertion of persons who said they changed.

LM Comment: I suggest footnotes 78 and 79 as the citation.

Can we change the citations to the new template format or is it still necessary to quote them? Trouver (talk)

July 8 edit to discontinued presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality

From:

In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”

To:
In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding the issue, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”

LM: Not sure describing homosexuality as an "issue" is better. It sounds inflammatory to me. Presentations and consultations show that the material of our lives can be a subject for study--for example, I learned that how I saw my mother was a "subject" that could be described, increasingly understood, and studied in the same the way I studied a subject in college. I think "this matter" is important to show it is a subject of study.

Does the change improve this sentence? Trouver (talk)

Edits to Lede

July 8 First Edit to Lede

From:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

To:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

LM: Not sure why "a" philosophy would be better. I agree that the other changes are an improvement.

July 8 Second Edit to Lede (correct confused sentence)

From:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

To:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, the study of what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

LM comment: I agree this change makes the sentence clearer.

This change is good. Greetings everyone! Trouver (talk)

Reply

LoreMariano objects to changes I made to the following passage:

'In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”'

What can I say except that the passage was very badly written? LoreMariano doesn't seem to understand the problem. She apparently thinks that adding "the subject" before "homosexuality" adds something useful or meaningful to the sentence. It does not. It is simply unnecessary verbiage. Her rambling comments about how she learned to see her mother in Aesthetic Realism are not to the point. LoreMariano also wishes to retain "this matter", and opposes the change to "this issue." Perhaps that is because "this matter" was the terminology that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation chose to employ? It is, of course, perfectly proper to use such language in direct quotations from statements made by the Foundation, but the page is meant to be written like an encyclopedia article, not like a press release from the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. The objection that "issue" is inflammatory is foolish; it's a perfectly appropriate word to use. Finally, using the expression "this matter" twice in one sentence is awkward and extremely bad writing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

More to follow. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

LoreMariano objects to my change of "the philosophy" to "a philosophy" in the lead. If she cannot explain whether "the" or "a" is better, then what was the point of reverting the change? If you look at properly written articles about philosophies or movements, you'll see that "a" is the term used. See Objectivism (Ayn Rand), for example. "A" specifies what Aesthetic Realism is more clearly and more simply than "the". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, everyone, let's refrain from combative language. This article is the product of several Users and Wikipedia editors, and their work should be respected. The statement in quotes expresses the view of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, and all Users were instructed to present their view before presenting opposing views, which I believe has been done throughout this article. The statement is clear and it should not be changed. As to "a philosophy" I think that change is acceptable. Many changes made by FreeKnowledge do improve the article, so thank you for these. On the other hand, I question some of word changes, particularly in the section dealing with the change from homosexuality, and as this concerns living persons, we should be careful that changes are really improvements, not simply differences in style.Trouver (talk)

1. I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator's edits, which are NPOV, make the article read better, and are non-controversial, except to certain cult members.
2. OuterLimits is spot on: The Aesthetic Realists have learned enough about the Wikipedia process and terminology to try to exploit and abuse it. According to them, you can't make a change unless you get consensus, and you'll never get consensus because they won't give it to you. Ta-da, de-facto ownership of the article.
3. The article is horrible. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up. We've amassed tons of sources that would aid in doing so. (See the links at the top of this page.) The Scientology article could be used as an example, especially as that article has received a lot of attention.
4. Speaking of Scientology, the Scientologists were rightly banned from WP for inappropriate edits. But here the Aesthetic Realists have often been coddled by admins and long-time editors, who haven't called them on their B.S. That's the main reason the article is as bad as it is.
5. I gave up on trying to improve the article long ago, and unfortunately have no plans to resume. I just don't have that kind of time on my hands any more. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article: This article was written through an exhaustive process of editing and working together between numerous people who disagreed about many issues. There was consensus. Look at the history of the article and the talk page.

Numerous neutral editors were involved in the process.

Regarding offensive language:

In this posting, User:Michaelbluejay insults and belittles other editors, whose editing is referred to as “B.S.” This has happened before. It is contrary to Wikipedia good faith policy WP:AGF and etiquette protocol WP:EQ. Nathan43 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit greaty from more uninvolved editors, people who don't bring such strong affiliations or sentiments to the discussion. I'd really recommend you try to get some more third-party input from less invested folks at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. It's a nice process and might be helpful. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think this is a good idea. LoreMariano (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Trouver, the use of peculiar language such as "the change from homosexuality" to describe attempts to change sexual orientation is a major example of what is wrong with the article. Such expressions can of course be used in direct quotations from Aesthetic Realism literature, but there is otherwise no reason why they should ever be used. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll note again that I intend to restore my changes unless other editors can explain why I shouldn't. So far I've seen objections to only a small number of changes, and petty and fairly unconvincing objections at that. Nathan43 says above that, "This article was written through an exhaustive process of editing and working together between numerous people who disagreed about many issues." That may well be, but the result was nonetheless a poor article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to Lede without Consensus

Re: FreeKnowledgeCreator's comment: "If you look at properly written articles about philosophies or movements, you'll see that "a" is the term used."

Actually, there are precedents for using "the" rather than "a" in reference to a philosophy.

"The" is used to identify the philosophy of Hegel: "Hegelianism is the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel which can be summed up by the dictum that "the rational alone is real", which means that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories." [1]

"The" is also used for the philosophy of Kant: "Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher born in Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). [2]

Since G.W.F. Hegel founded one philosophy, and Eli Siegel founded one philosophy, and Immanuel Kant founded one philosophy, "the" philosophy is appropriate for all three. Nathan43 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of this minor change makes me understand why other editors have given up trying to improve the article. Sorry, but "a" is indeed the grammatically correct and appropriate term to use here. "Hegelianism" and "Kantianism" are in no sense comparable to Aesthetic Realism. Hegel and Kant never chose "Hegelianism" and "Kantianism" as labels for their respective philosophies, and in any case their thought underwent revisions that make it doubtful that one can isolate a specific "philosophy" in their work. That's why the articles you refer to are not written in the way that, for example, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is. Rand created a specific philosophy she called Objectivism, which is why "a" is the term used there. Aesthetic Realism is comparable to Objectivism, hardly to "Hegelianism" and "Kantianism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of mutual cooperation I wish to all: Happy Bastille Day! Trouver (talk)

Since other editors have been too lazy or too distracted to make any kind of objection to most of my changes, I am going to go ahead and restore them over the next few days. If other editors want to be disruptive and revert uncontroversial corrections to grammar and punctuation, then that is their look out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Voilà! The Disambiguation Note at the top of the article solves the controversy about the first sentence! There are several usages of "aesthetic realism" in philosophy, aesthetics and metaphysics, but this article refers to the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel. "The" is more appropriate here. It is grammatically correct. There is nothing wrong with the first sentence of this article and if it is changed the change will be reverted. Regards to all. Trouver (talk)

If you actually follow the link to the disambiguation page you think resolves the question, you will find that "Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel in 1941." - Outerlimits (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This article in the British Journal of Aesthetics distinguishes the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel from the term as recently used in analytic philosophical aesthetics, and further explains my comment above. [[3]] Trouver (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Trouver, I have very little interest in debating this issue with you. As a matter of fact, I have no interest in debating it at all, since you've been unable to understand or properly respond to anything I've said. Your comments appear to be simply a desperate attempt to score points against me. I can't find the note you mention, and it does not, in any case, show anything about whether Aesthetic Realism should be called "a philosophy" or "the philosophy" in the lead. (Outerlimits is correct about the disambiguation page, and I thank him for pointing it out). That you would be so fixated on this one detail about the lead, to the exclusion of anything else to do with the article, is certainly strange. Do you have any comments about the article that do not relate to the "a versus the" issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should cease debating issues here until we have an arbitrator, and there are many points we agree upon. I like your addition of "poet and critic" and the other changes you have already made to the lede. As I said before, I think this is an improvement. I agree with, and thank you for, the changes of a technical kind that you have made throughout the article, such as moving citations to the end of sentences instead of having them in the middle of sentences. I also agree that any extra spaces should be removed, and I appreciate the time you spent doing this and the attention you have given to this article. In order to resolve our remaining differences, I ask that, as the Dispute Resolution Page recommends, all comments on this page address content only and not the conduct of other editors. I am hopeful that we can work together in good faith on this article. Trouver (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In practice, it's often impossible to completely separate discussions about content from discussions about user conduct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Eugenics in "Opposition to Racism"

This comment refers to the definition of eugenics you have added. The problem is (and this is not your fault) that the word "eugenics" does not even appear in this essay, and so the addition of so much about eugenics is misleading. "The Equality of Man" is an essay which aims "to show that Men Are Equal--in the clear and full meaning of the words" and aims to establish "better definitions of Heredity and Environment." Siegel criticizes how biology and the study of heredity were used "to show the inevitable inferiority of most men" and the essay was published in 1923, when eugenics was popular, but since he does not refer to eugenics specifically, this appears to have been original research. I am not reverting, since that would be reverting to something incorrect, but the first sentence of this section must be corrected, and I will make a suggestion, as soon as time permits, for all to comment on. I suggest that no more word changes of any kind be made to this article until we have an arbitrator, so that all editors have a chance to thoroughly review them all. Trouver (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC) additions/deletions/changes ofTrouver (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm happy to accept your explanation of this matter. If you can modify the material to make it more accurate or suitable to the article, then please do. Thanks for trying to find a way to do that other than simply reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The original sentence is:

In one of his earliest essays, “The Equality of Man” (1923), Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics[91]

I suggest a more accurate sentence is:

In one of his earliest essays, “The Equality of Man” (1923), Siegel criticized "the present common feeling that men are unequal" (p.41).

The citation discussing eugenics should be removed, and the section would continue with the existing second sentence. Please comment everybody. Trouver (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Any other opinions about this change? Trouver (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the change made by FreeKnowledgeCreator on July 26, I know you supplied my own words, but since the original words were also mine, I am reverting back to them, because of this sentence on the DRN which I think was written by our Arbitrator, TeeVeed, (although the first signature I see under this comment is FreeKnowledgeCreator). Whoever the author is, this comment reflects exactly my original intention in mentioning eugenics. I revert because I do not wish to dilute "the historical significance and context" of this essay.Trouver (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"I was the one who deleted the definition of eugenics from the article. It was not necessary since eugenics is a topic that is covered elsewhere. The dispute involving "they/he did not call it eugenics"-when The Equality of Man (1923) essay was written, makes sense but the proposed deletion of, :"Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics" in favor of: "the present common feeling that men are unequal" takes away from the meaning of the fact that Siegel had responded to the rise of eugenics-based viewpoints in 1923. The sentence change there, although factually correct, dilutes the historical significance and context that the 1st sentence correctly presents."(see DRN)

I'm simply baffled that Trouver would revert a change that he himself proposed. I don't accept his reasoning at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution In Progress

TeeVeeed (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A note from the volunteer monitoring this dispute: I have volunteered to assist in this dispute. In an effort to be fair, I did not read the article, the history of changes to the article, (yet), and I have just begun to digest the facts here on this talk page as related to the subject. I must also confess a complete ignorance of the article subject Aesthetic Realism. My initial comprehension of the subject was that it is some type of artistic style, or even an architectural style such-as a design movement. So you're all going to have to excuse my complete lack of familiarity with the topic as it appears to be defined here. TeeVeeed (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. On this Talk page, and I think on the DR page, Aesthetic Realists try to claim that the article achieved consensus. This is a bald-faced lie, and it's not the first time they've made it, or that I've called them out on it. For the record, I and other editors have continuously objected vociferously to the poor quality of the article as resulted from the Aesthetic Realists' attempts to own it, insert puffery, and censor criticism.
2. The Aesthetic Realists are also trying to avoid being called out on their B.S. by hiding behind WP:AGF. The thing is, the title of that policy is "ASSUME Good Faith," i.e., when we DON'T KNOW others' motivations. But the bad-faith edits and Talk of the Aesthetic Realists is painfully clear, and I imagine they're clear to anyone who's not an Aesthetic Realist. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that it has been proposed to end the DRN discussion. This is not helpful at a time when normal talk page discussion doesn't seem able to solve this article's problems. If the DRN discussion is ended, then I will have to start a discussion elsewhere, maybe at the neutral point of view noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

strange referencing

In this edit, a reference (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20596628) was inserted, with the comment "link to Poetry Magazine with mention of this book". Yet the referenced page is merely a list of "Books Received" by the magazine. The reference tells us merely that the Terrain Gallery sent a copy of a book they published to Poetry magazine, and Poetry magazine listed it as received. (To save others the trouble, under "VERSE AND PROSE COMBINED", the book The Critical Muse: Imperative Aesthetic Realism Illustrations, ed. by Margot Carpenter and Karen Van Outryve. Terrain Gallery (New York). No price listed." is the only pertinent information.) The reference, then, appearing within a footnote, doesn't actually serve as a reference to anything in the article, and its presence is deceptive. It ought to be removed. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted: I've removed the link.Trouver (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of link

Nathan43 has removed a link I added to the Sexual orientation change efforts article, as seen here. The reason given was, "Link removed because it deliberately diverts attention to article supportive of editor's own views." I have two things to say to that. First, I'm not sure what Nathan43 thinks my views are, or what is objectionable about them. Perhaps he would be good enough to explain? Second, his removal of the link has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Nothing, anywhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, says that you get to remove a link to an article because you don't like or agree with that article. I consider Nathan43's edit to be vandalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the link to Sexual orientation change efforts is relevant and that Nathan43's removal constitutes vandalism. It's part of the Aesthetic Realists' efforts to whitewash their past. However, this is an encyclopedia, and we don't write the articles according to how the subjects wish to be presented. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To FreeKnowledgeCreator: The article you linked to is not pertinent to this article on Aesthetic Realism. Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy, not conversion therapy. The article you linked to talks about “efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation” by “acts of violence.” This is definitely not Aesthetic Realism. Nathan43 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nathan 43 that the removal of the link was justifiable and does not constitute vandalism. The link does appear to be an attempt to divert readers away from what the section is actually saying and lump the change from homosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism in with a grab bag of reversion therapy efforts that are not even tangentially related to Aesthetic Realism. As to vandalism, Wikipedia policy defines vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This edit does not meet that definition nor does it mirror any of the examples of vandalism Wikipedia provides which are "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Cyberpathfinder (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing being whitewashed here. The subject of homosexuality has not been presented at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in over 20 years.

There are men who have changed from homosexuality through the study of Aesthetic Realism who deserve to live their lives as they have chosen, just as gay men deserve to live their lives as they choose. As has been said many times, Aesthetic Realism has always been in favor of equal civil rights for gay men and women. LoreMariano (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Presented, or kept secret, AR's belief is that AR makes gay men straight. As illustrated in their New York Times advertisement of May 3, 1979, and as just illustrated by your latest posting here. The link clearly belongs. Surely you do not want to "keep this beautiful news" from Wikipedia readers? - Outerlimits (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The change from homosexuality is not a belief, it's a fact. Whether or not you believe it or agree with it doesn't mean you have the right to change the fact. LoreMariano (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your belief that it's true is irrelevant. It's a claim by those associated with Aesthetic Realism that is believed by no one not associated with Aesthetic Realism, as conceded by advertisements placed by Aesthetic Realists decrying the failure of the press to proclaim "this beautiful and scientific method" of "change from homosexuality."

Wikipedia is no stranger to dealing with disputed claims, and has policies and procedures in place that ensure they are dealt with fairly. The most basic is WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy which dictates that such claims must be attributed to those making them, rather than asserted as fact. Applying it in this instance, we say that Aesthetic Realism asserts, or claims, or maintains, etc. that gay men who study Aesthetic Realism become heterosexual. We don't state those claims as fact, even though you'd like us to. And the second policy that pertains to claims—like this one—that are at variance with mainstream points of view, is WP:FRINGE, which assures that fringe viewpoints are meaningfully counterbalanced rather than presented as an equally probable alternative to the mainstream consensus. "The proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." Let's face facts: this is a claim that AR doesn't even dare to make in public anymore, because it leaves AR open to ridicule. So policy dictates that the mainstream view (that attempts to change sexual orientation are ineffective and represent a serious threat to the well-being of those involved) and of authoritative organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association which hold that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation" belong here, in this article, to counterbalance AR's assertions to the contrary. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice how Nathan43 has totally changed his excuse for removing the link. His original excuse was that he didn't agree with the content of the article that was linked to. Now, perhaps realizing that such a position is indefensible, he has decided instead that the problem is that the article is not relevant. That is, of course, a completely different excuse. It is just as indefensible as his previous excuse. Though Nathan43 refers to conversion therapy, the linked article was Sexual orientation change efforts, not Conversion therapy. SOCE is very broadly defined, and covers things that conversion therapy might not. To the extent that Aesthetic Realism was involved in attempts to change sexual orientation, it clearly qualifies as one form of SOCE; that it's also a "philosophy", and that it has views on many subjects other than homosexuality, doesn't alter this. To judge from his comments, Nathan43 apparently believes that only attempts to change sexual orientation through violence qualify as SOCE. His holding that ignorant view suggests that he hasn't bothered to actually read the Sexual orientation change efforts article. Those who have read it will note that it mentions Aesthetic Realism, among many other things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that this article is within the Sexual orientation change efforts category. How can editors arguing that the link to the Sexual orientation change efforts article isn't relevant accept the category? There's no logic to their position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The link proposed by FKC is clearly meant to act as a disclaimer to the section. It does not enable the reader to understand how Aesthetic Realism sees this subject but rather serves to obscure it. It does not belong here. I would also respectfully ask editors to refrain from personal attacks on other editors though I know this topic arouses strong emotions. Words such as "ignorant" do little to advance the cause of dispassionate knowledge which I assume in good faith we are all striving to achieve here. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with the removal of this link. Its purpose was to divert people from reading Aesthetic Realism's unique, philosophic understanding of homosexulaity and inaccurately lumps it together with therapies and conversion techniques, which it clearly is not.Sydney Bufford (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sydney, but this is not a vote, and you haven't given a valid rationale for removal. Your desire to not have Aesthetic Realism considered together with other forms of conversion therapy isn't a legitimate reason to obscure that connection. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

These excuses for removing the link are the most pitiful, the most unconvincing, and the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia (I've witnessed far more arguments and disputes than I have participated in). Though Cyberpathfinder doesn't bother to explain what he means by describing the link as "a disclaimer to the section", my guess is that he means that I'm trying to cast doubt on Aesthetic Realism's claims to have changed people's sexual orientations by linking to an article that takes a negative view of attempts to change people's sexual orientations. In other words, he doesn't like the link because he doesn't agree with the article being linked to. Too bad, Cyberpathfinder, because that's not a legitimate reason for removing a link. It also contradicts the claim that the link is not relevant. Logically, there is no way that Sexual orientation change efforts can both contradict this article and be irrelevant to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have adequately described the reasons for my position on this matter and will let stand what I previously wrote. More dispassionate editors can decide for themselves if they are "pitiful," "unconvincing" and "ridiculous," which I hardly think they are. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Cyberpathfinder, you have not "adequately described" your reasons. You wrote above that the link was "a disclaimer to the section". I offered an interpretation of what you meant by that peculiar comment. You now won't even say whether you think my interpretation is correct or not. What would make you consider that reasonable behavior? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, rather than an unproductive back and forth, tit for tat, I would say we have both expressed our position on this matter pretty clearly and should let a dispassionate editor now weigh in. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN Dispute Closed (July 31, 2013)

I suggest that we follow the recommendation by the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to "stay on Talk Page and dispute content as needed." [[5]] If consensus cannot be reached, I am in favor of starting a discussion on the neutral point of view noticeboard. LoreMariano (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been obvious for some time that discussion among the seven or eight editors who have taken an interest in the article recently isn't going to produce consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Change to section on homosexuality

If I may chime in to perhaps add something useful to what I think may be the cause of the disagreements. Having read the large history of this subject on Wikipedia and having been a student of Aesthetic Realism in the late seventies, early eighties, I'm familiar with the subject matter. For the record, I consider Eli Siegel to be an important 20th century scholar whose contribution to the world's knowledge has still not been fully recognized as it should be. What his students have done, especially after his death is another matter. The subject that has been mentioned before, and one which is in the national spotlight is the matter of Conversion Therapy for homosexual men and women. New Jersey just made it Illegal, two months after Exodus international, the largest group devoted to the conversion of homosexuals, closed its doors and formally apologized for their history. It seems what the Aesthetic Realism foundation did clearly do, evident in the transcript of the man who publicly claimed the change from homosexuality but privately was still gay, is practice a form of, at times, virulent form of conversion therapy. I do recall that this same man later committed suicide. Whoever did change and is happy with that change should be counted as a valid opinion if they publicly said so. It's not useful to mince words. But the matter of conversion therapy and its place in the history of Aesthetic Realism is I think, the point underlying these immense back and forths. To their credit, the Aesthetic Realism foundation discontinued presenting on this subject, but it does not mean that it is erased from their philosophy and their outlook on the world. I propose a small addition to the article that states that the foundation did practice conversion therapy but later saw that it was cruel and stopped. Degas525 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the person mentioned above did not commit suicide. User:Degas525 was asked to remove it but has not responded. LoreMariano (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy to be confused. It was Eli Siegel who "changed from breathing" through the study of Aesthetic Realism. - Outerlimits (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You deny that it's true? I'm not making a cause and effect relationship here, but I know for a fact that this man, whose brother still studies Aesthetic realism, did commit suicide. Degas525 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge, what might seem a minor change to you might not seem minor to other editors in this very sensitive section. For example, the parenthetical passage you have removed("he was no longer impelled towards men") might seem redundant, but emphasizes the fact that the change being described was not simply a change in behavior but a change in physical response. This is the most contentious aspect of the article, and it concerns living persons. I'm not going to revert but will wait for other editors to weigh in, and unlike my change regarding eugenics above (which nobody seems to care about), I think there will be comments on this change. For myself, although I am not one of those personally involved, I think the deleted parenthetical passage clarifies the nature of the change and therefore should be reverted. Trouver (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason the inclusion of the phrase "he was no longer impelled toward men" is needed here is because it describes the nature of the change Kranz and other men are saying happened to them which goes beyond simply a repressing of sexual attraction toward men (which has in some other instances been described as change). I would disagree that the phrase is redundant. In any event this is very far from an insignificant edit to the article. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to inform me that my change was not minor. I did not mark it as minor, or consider it that way. The "sensitive" section on homosexuality is poorly written and tendentious, and clearly needs major changes. To explain that Sheldon Kranz "was no longer impelled towards men" when he allegedly changed his sexual orientation is an insult to the intelligence of every reader of this article. For a man, a homosexual orientation is by definition sexual attraction toward men, and a heterosexual orientation is by definition sexual attraction toward women. Therefore, when Kranz supposedly changed his sexual orientation, the alleged change consisted of his ceasing to be attracted toward men and becoming attracted to women instead. Whether the change actually occurred or not, understanding what it is supposed to mean is perfectly simple, and doesn't require the "explanation" I removed. There is no need to note that the change was not simply one of behavior, because sexual orientation (as educated people know) is not the same thing as sexual behavior. If some readers (children, perhaps) are unaware of what "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality" mean, then we can link to the appropriate articles. You raise the red flag of BLP, which is in fact irrelevant, since Sheldon Kranz is long dead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this section went through a great deal of back and forth between editors, which resulted in some redundancy. How about if the sentence is changed to: "Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: he was no longer impelled toward men, but experienced love for a woman for the first time in his life. Kranz was married for 25 years (until his death) to Obie award-winning actress Anne Fielding." Comments? Trouver (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is not wording that I myself would have used, but I think it is preferable to what is in the article now. You may as well make the change. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a whole lot wrong with the suggested wording, the most compelling of which is that it's not based on any cited reliable source. I would like to check the sources for the claims made, so we'll need as many citations as are needed to support them. It's also needlessly detailed. And there's absolutely no reason to include such peacock preening trivia as "Obie award-winning", nor does his wife's name seem material in any way. I'm not sure why anyone thought it relevant that Kranz was a World War II veteran, either. I believe that what was actually published in the "H Persuasion" was more or less that Kranz claimed that he was initially exclusively homosexual, yet after his first Aesthetic Realism lesson he never had sex with a man again, and began to desire women. That's a much clearer way of stating it, and attributes the claim to Kranz. I suppose we'll have to dig the book out of storage. And of course, the real problem with the section on Aesthetic Realism's ex-gay efforts is that nowhere is their claim counterbalanced by the well-established mainstream consensus that such change is not possible, and such efforts are harmful. This is required by WP:FRINGE. Instead the current article seeks to attribute this mainstream view to a small coterie of gay therapists, gay advocacy groups and gay activists, who are further characterized as "hostile to Aesthetic Realism" instead of "dismissive of Aesthetic Realism's claims". We are told that it is these groups, rather than, say national press such as David Susskind and The New York Times who characterized what AR was offering as a gay cure, which of course is not true. We should also probably place AR's idea...that male homosexuality arises as a result of distaste or hatred for women... historically, as a theory popular in the psychoanalytic era, but discarded in modern thought. One is also left with the idea that AR has repudiated these views rather than merely stopped discussing them, which is of course not the case. There are also other issues: "In keeping with its general approach," is unneeded special pleading, for example, and the heading "Victim of the Press" should be removed, as the "Victim of the Press" campaign is not the main topic of the paragraph that follows, which is actually still about AR's doctrine on homosexuality. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Trouver's suggested change because it weakens the sentence. It is much clearer to say that Sheldon Kranz changed from homosexuality than to say his sexual preference changed, which is admittedly the same thing but expressed in a less straight-forward fashion. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The expression "changed from homosexuality" is Aesthetic Realist jargon that doesn't belong in the article except in direct quotations. Few, if any, people who aren't supportive of or associated with Aesthetic Realism would consider it appropriate language. And to Outerlimits above, let me repeat that Trouver's proposed wording is not something I would have come up with myself. It's better than what's in the article now only in that it avoids the redundancy I pointed out. If material in the homosexuality section isn't sourced properly, then of course it needs to be removed (some of the refs simply give something kind "the David Susskind show" as a source, which I doubt is acceptable. Instead, we would need other sources that covered events). I also agree that the fact that Anne Fielding won an award for her acting isn't relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As a man who changed from homosexuality through my study of Aesthetic Realism and someone new to this talk page, I am perplexed by the objection to the phrase, "changed from homosexuality." To quote one source, Websters Dictionary <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change>, the first definition of the intransitive verb "change" is "to become different." This describes precisely what occurred in my life. I was homosexual; I became heterosexual. If this isn't appropriate language and readily understandable to the vast majority of English speaking people over the age of (conservatively) 12, I don't know what is.Sydney Bufford (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether you have changed your sexual orientation or not has no relevance to this discussion. You may happen to think that "changed from homosexuality" is appropriate language, but to me (and I think to the overwhelming majority of people) it's simply a peculiar, confusing piece of jargon. Were it really an appropriate expression, then it might be widely used, but in fact no article on Wikipedia that deals with attempts to change sexual orientation uses the expression except this one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that "change" means "become different" doesn't mean that "Kranz changed from homosexuality" is idiomatic; quite the opposite. If you apply your definition, "Kranz changed from homosexuality" would mean "Kranz became different from homosexuality" which is fairly nonsensical. Kranz and homosexuality were different things at all times. FreeKnowledgeCreator, I didn't and don't mean to discourage you from making any incremental changes that you feel improve the article, but did want to make sure that uncited assertions didn't get introduced (such as putting AR's assertion that Kranz's sexual orientation changed as "his way of seeing the world changed" into Kranz's mouth, for example, as we have no source quoting Kranz on this point.) - Outerlimits (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite right. If a man broke his leg, and the leg were then healed by some method, we wouldn't say that he "changed from having a broken leg." There's no reason to use similar kinds of weird language to describe alleged changes in sexual orientation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already read more on this topic than I ever would, but I just have to say that "he was no longer impelled towards men" is the most awkward way of saying, "he no longer had sexual desire for men" or "he was no longer gay" that I've ever seen. "Impelled"? Who uses this term regarding sexual orientation? It is archaic. I'm not romantically impelled to other people, I desire them, fall in love/lust, have a crush, etc.

This seems like some buzz-word that is being used to be consistent to some ideological principle but just because founders of this movement used certain terms or phrases doesn't mean that the writing of the article has to be awkwardly written, too.

Our understanding of sexual orientation has evolved over the past century and I don't think anyone, straight, gay, bi or queer, thinks of sexual attraction being a matter of being "impelled" towards another person. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "no longer impelled towards men" is an example of the kind of language that needs to be removed from that section. By all means remove it, or do whatever else you can to improve the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)|

This controversy is not about anyone's preferred phraseology, but rather reporting in a straightforward fashion how Kranz himself described what occurred with him, and since his statements are published (and I find it understandable English in spite of the effort to characterize it as "peculiar") I think this should reflect how Kranz expressed himself. He said he "changed from homosexuality." It is also clear that Kranz felt homosexuality as an impulsion of a kind he didn't like rather than as an "attraction" or "desire." Throughout The H Persuasion we have various statements he made about his sexual attraction to men and how he felt about it such as "My feeling was that I never felt good before, during and after, though I was propelled and compelled as much as anyone." Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-910492-14-X.. Kranz was an editor with Random House and rather accomplished with the English language. He wrote short stories and taught English literature as he himself says in the transcript of the David Susskind Show. My point here is that while others might express themselves differently these sentences are about Kranz and his change and should reflect how he himself described it. Living persons are still involved. Although Sheldon Kranz died years ago, his wife, Anne Fielding, is still living, teaching and performing as an actress today.

And by the way, regardless of a comment above, we do have a source for Kranz saying that as his way of seeing the world changed his sexual orientation changed. "Aesthetic Realism is the first body of knowledge which presents a way of seeing the world that incidentally affects one in terms of the way one sees women." Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-910492-14-X. "The way you see the world is inaccurate. As that changes, the H situation will change." (Kranz quoting what Eli Siegel said to him in an Aesthetic Realism lesson.) Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 26. ISBN 0-910492-14-X.. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the name of Kranz's surviving spouse should be removed, and immediately if you feel that mention of her marriage is potentially embarrassing. The name is trivia, rather than something which actually illuminates the subject of Aesthetic Realism. And as I think we've established, we're not obliged to use Kranz's words when what he said can be stated in plain, idiomatic English, in a way that is clearer and more accessible to our readers. The subject of the section is AR's claims about homosexuality, not the language in which they were couched. Insofar as Kranz's statement are material, they can be summarized rather than quoted when that makes the article more lucid and concise.- Outerlimits (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not suggesting deletion of Anne Fielding-Kranz' name since the fact that a man who said he changed from homosexuality was happily married for decades is hardly trivial. And the word changes proposed, as I outlined in detail above, do not express what Sheldon Kranz said in "plain, idiomatic English" but clearly change its meaning. Kranz' words are in themselves plain and idiomatic English and don't need to be rewritten. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you are attempting to argue that this article should be written in Aesthetic Realist jargon. "Changed from homosexuality" is not correct English, does not make sense, and is not language that a properly written, neutral encyclopedia would use, unless quoting someone directly. Wikipedia is under no obligation to use whatever weird expression someone chose to employ in describing an alleged change in his sexual orientation. Instead, it should use neutral, scientifically accurate language. This is not "rewriting" Kranz, or changing his meaning, as you incorrectly imply. It is simply brining this article up to Wikipedia's standards. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that people should be accurately quoted and not have their words rewritten to convey a meaning they did not intend as I outline in the citations above. Again, this is clear, understandable, proper encyclopedic English. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what you were saying, in effect, was that the article's discussion of Aesthetic Realism's stance on homosexuality had to be written in Aesthetic Realist jargon, eg "changed from homosexuality." For my part, I never suggested that "changed from homosexuality" couldn't appear in direct quotations, if there actually is a need to directly quote someone (which I doubt there is). Endlessly repeating that "changed from homosexuality" is normal, acceptable English doesn't make it so. Your understanding of the English language, and of what kind of language is suitable for an encyclopedia, is obviously wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We will unfortunately have to agree to disagree about my understanding of the English language. The sentences in question concern how Sheldon Kranz described and felt about his change from homosexuality and should convey that accurately. For each of the reasons I detailed in my July 24 post the proposed changes will not do that. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments seemed to boil down to the claim that using any expression other than "changed from homosexuality" would somehow change the meaning of that section. You gave, and still have given, no reason for thinking that this is true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have given my reasons. The proposed edits change the meaning and import of Sheldon Kranz' words and are not accurate. I have provided my reasoning along with cited quotations above. Sadly, I don't think we will ever come to an agreement about this. However I think I have said enough for an objective editor to see what I am saying and understand my reasoning. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons were stupid. This is an encyclopedia, not the Sheldon Kranz vanity page. It's of no relevance that Kranz chose to use the specific expression, "changed from homosexuality". If we had to quote him directly, we could use that expression, of course, but there's no such need. The exact same meaning can certainly be conveyed in normal, correct English, eg we could simply say that Kranz claimed that he had changed his sexual orientation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand that you view my reasons as “stupid.” Obviously I disagree. I doubt a more objective reader/editor would share your opinion. Your suggested revision only confirms my original reasoning. We cannot use the word “claimed” since it not only changes Kranz’ meaning but would also violate WP policy. See Wikipedia: "Words to Watch" which states: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word "claim" is an expression of doubt; when used as in "John claimed he had not eaten the pie", it can imply he had in fact eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words; for example, "John said he did not eat the pie." Cyberpathfinder (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's revealing of the state this discussion has reached that you would focus only on one word (which does not, of course, change Kranz's meaning) rather than any of the broader issues at stake. Your position is pretty obviously bankrupt, and I doubt the larger Wikipedia community will have much sympathy with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It most definitely does change Kranz' meaning (I refer you to my posting of July 24 for the exact details) and also violates WP policy. But at least we are both confident in our positions and must, I am afraid, await the verdict of more neutrally-minded editors. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your post of July 24 was drivel. Let's look at the "exact details" of what you had to say there. According to you, the controversy was about "reporting in a straightforward fashion how Kranz himself described what occurred with him." You noted that Kranz's words were published, and said that the article "should reflect how Kranz expressed himself." There is no argument there, nor an explanation of how Wikipedia's policies supported your position. You simply asserted that because Kranz used a specific expression, the article absolutely must use it as well. You were wrong then and are wrong now. "Changed from homosexuality" is an illiterate expression, one that an encyclopedia would never use unless quoting someone directly. You also wrote that, "It is also clear that Kranz felt homosexuality as an impulsion of a kind he didn't like rather than as an 'attraction' or 'desire'." Apparently, you believed that this assertion of yours shows that the article must use the expression "he no longer felt impelled toward men" to described what happened when Kranz's sexual orientation allegedly changed. Again, no, it doesn't show that. The distinction between being sexually "impelled" toward men, on the one hand, and being sexually attracted to or desiring them on the other may be an important one in your mind, but that doesn't mean that there's any distinction at all in reality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would invite any neutral reader/editor who visits here to look at my July 24 posting and decide for themselves. Three quick points. 1) As I have said many times, "changed from homosexuality" is perfectly acceptable English which can be understood by anybody reading it. 2) The sentences in question are for the purpose of describing what Kranz himself felt about his homosexual feelings and the words already in the article accomplish that. I am not "asserting" anything. I am simply quoting Kranz' own words to show that how this editor wants to change this particular sentence would present Kranz' feelings incorrectly. 3) The discussion here would be elevated if editors refrained from gratuitous insults. Such unnecessary words as "weird," "stupid," "bankrupt," "drivel," and "illiterate" are not helpful. WP policy states: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia...When disagreements occur try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict...When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself..." I invite all the editors here, myself included, to move forward in this spirit. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments show two things. First, you don't understand, or choose not to understand, that it is perfectly legitimate, when writing an article, to summarize something a man said without using his exact words. Second, there's no point in discussing anything with an Aesthetic Realist. The best way forward for this article would be for Aesthetic Realists to be banned from editing it, not that I expect that to happen. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe they show that at all. The difference of opinion here is over whether the changes you have proposed "summarize" Sheldon Kranz' words or change their meaning and intent. I have outlined with specificity why the later is true. I am rather sure at one time or another many of the editors here have wanted to have those who disagreed with them banned.. But iIf editors got to ban those who disagreed with them Wikipedia would be a far less useful tool. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No one has suggested banning anyone for disagreeing. What helps to make Wikipedia a useful tool is that rabid point-of-view pushers who are interested in producing propaganda rather than describing reality can be banned, especially if they seek to establish ownership of an article. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Reality should always be accurately described and I'll say once again that gratuitous insults are not helpful to that process. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpathfinder is saying nothing that would convince anyone who isn't an Aesthetic Realist. Note that despite his claim to have shown "with specificity" why my change to the wording of the article would change its meaning, he hasn't even discussed the actual wording I used. The article currently states, "In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919–1980) was the first man to report that he changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation (he was no longer impelled toward men) to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life." My wording in contrast was, "In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919–1980) was the first man to report that he changed his sexual orientation through Aesthetic Realism. Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life." Does that make the article less accurate? No. Cyberpathfinder doesn't have any idea what he is saying. Responding to him serves no purpose, and I'd discourage others from doing so. Holding a request for comment might be an appropriate next step. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem we are just needlessly repeating ourselves. See my July 24 posting for an explanation with specifics as to why removing the words "he was no longer impelled toward men" and replacing them as suggested would change the meaning and intent of these sentences. I also agree that we need a neutral party to weigh in as the next appropriate step and have already said so. (See my comments on August 5.) It doesn't serve much of a useful purpose to have an ongoing back and forth at this point, especially with its attendant (and really unnecessary) disrespectful tone. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The self-referential nature of your comments ("see my previous posting where I say..", and things of that nature), helps show how utterly bankrupt your position is. A request for comment, or a posting on the neutral point of notice board, might be good steps forward. I have dragged my feet on this, but still intend to do something about it. I had been hoping that editors not so far involved in disputes here would take an interest in this article's outstanding problems, but unfortunately that just hasn't happened. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I have reverted changes to the lead Trouver made here. There were two main problems with Trouver's edit. It was not in accord with WP:LEAD, which dictates that the lead is meant to summarize the article. Simply removing material from the main body of the article and placing it in the lead instead is thus inappropriate. In addition, the wording "discontinued presentations and consultations on this change" appears to imply that Aesthetic Realism successfully changed people's sexual orientations, which is unacceptable, per WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're right; there's no reason for the AR boilerplate position on their gay-change doctrine to be in the article in three places. It's still in there in two places—the text, and in a footnote. I think it ought by rights to be quoted in the footnote only, which should be place after "In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality", with the rest of that paragraph deleted from the article body. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The controversy about changing homosexuality does not have to be present in the lead (I agree with TeeVeed here), particularly since this has not been taught for nearly a quarter of a century, and giving it such prominence is misleading to the public, yet if it remains here, the official statement of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation as to why it discontinued this subject must be presented. This is in accord with WP:LEAD because, unfortunately, this particular aspect of the philosophy, which is not central to it, has been "unduly weighted" in this article. The statement appears only once, and in the footnote, which, like all the footnotes in this article, is quoted in full. The statement is phrased in a way that is in keeping with WP:NPOV and it should not be reverted.Trouver (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the controversy about Aesthetic Realism's attempts to change people's sexual orientation does have to be present in the lead. It's true that the Foundation hasn't promoted change attempts for a long time, but the controversy has permanently affected the image of Aesthetic Realism. Placing the Foundation's full statement about the issue in the lead is clearly undue. The full statement belongs only in the main body of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having the Foundation's position stated in the lead.Trouver (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's overly long, tendentious special pleading, that is more appropriately covered in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article. It can't be more detailed than the article is, or it ceases to be a lead. It can't contain items that are not covered in the body of the article. You want to make it into a billboard for points you want to emphasize; that's not what a lead is meant to do. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. If you are going to mention in the lead the controversy the Foundation faced over the change from homosexuality, NPOV requires the Foundation's official explanation as to why this was discontinued. If you prefer, we can omit the entire controversy in the lead, since (a) it is not central to the philosophy being described, and (b) it has not been taught for more than 20 years.Trouver (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Perhaps you should actually review them. The lead is a summary; the lead is concise. The lead should be written in a clear accessible style. The wording you propose fulfills none of those requirements. As to WP:NPOV: it is silent on the issue of "official" explanations. If you want to contend that NPOV has any applicability to your preferred version, you're going to have to actually outline a logical argument supporting your contention. Providing a link to WP:NPOV and waving your hands doesn't cut it. The version you are repeatedly reverting from already states that AR stopped publicly stating its position on homosexuality in 1990. So your version can't be preferred on that basis. In your version the AR position statement appears in the article four times. (the lead, the section on homosexuality, footnote 1, footnote 91.) That's not NPOV, that's an attempt to overwhelm by sheer repetition. Three times is more than enough.

You must stop simply reverting. You can try and make a logical case for your preferred wording on the talk page; you have failed to do so thus far. Or you can initiate a getting a third opinion, initiate another discussion at the Wikipedia:dispute resolution noticeboard or begin a Wikipedia:request for comment. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion is not the best option here. It's really only for situations in which two editors disagree, and no one else has commented; in this case, more than two editors have expressed a view on the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You certainly have a right to strong opinions and a political agenda, but I am afraid they are clouding your ability to be fair and impartial about this article. I have removed the Foundation's explanation from the article itself, but insist on its presence in the lead IF the controversy about homosexuality is mentioned there. Please do not revert this change, as it would show a sense of ownership (which has already been criticized) and an unwillingness to allow an accurate and fair presentation of the subject of this article.Trouver (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, please note that the Aesthetic Realists are just trying to wear you down. Their strategy is to just object, object, object, until you give up. They can't prevail on the merits of their arguments, but they keep arguing anyway, at length, so that you waste your time here on the Talk page rather than editing the article. They've learned enough of the WP lingo so they bandy policy names about, as though they were anywhere close to adhering to them, in an effort to seem legitimate, but their goal, as always, is to keep the article free of criticism (or perceived criticism) of AR. If you make a change, they complain bitterly that you didn't get consensus first, and you'll never get consensus because they won't give it to you. If they make a ridiculous edit and you revert it, they complain (as Trouver did) that you're asserting "ownership" of the article. If you try to remove their POV to make the article neutral, they'll claim (as Trouver did) that you have a "political agenda". (These guys really should really win some kind of award for irony.)

The question to me is, are we really required to keep "discussing" edits with editors whose agenda is clear and who consistently edit (and discuss) in bad faith? WP rightly stopped accepting similar edits from Scientologists, for similar reasons. Fruitless discussion with agenda-driven people who don't respect Wikipedia policies and won't give an inch is just a waste of time, IMHO, and unbiased editors ought to just write a good article. Let's remember, this is an encyclopedia.

For my part, I'd be happy to agree to cease editing the article, if the Aesthetic Realists will do the same, and leave all the editing to independent editors who have no experience with the organization.

As for specific edits, of course the lede is supposed to be a summary. And of course the thing that AR is most-known for (its efforts to turn gays straight) means that a link to Conversion Therapy is not only appropriate but necessary. Etc. And duh.MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Trouver, you're in no position to "insist" on anything. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. To remove the Foundation's explanation from the article itself, and place it in the lead instead, violates WP:LEAD, as has been pointed out several times now. Your comments about me are irrelevant and don't address the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

FKC, in addition to trying to wear you down, they're also just trying to waste your time fighting over small changes to the article. Even if you succeed in keeping the explanatory stuff out of the lede, and think you've won, they've really just tied up your time so much that you couldn't pursue other, more substantive changes. I'm not sure it's a good idea for any of us to spend so much time putting Band-Aids™ on the problem. As such, I'd like to discuss a ground-up rewrite. And before we do that, we should decide whether we should spin-off one or two other articles. For example, Scientology has at least three: one for the religion, one for the main organization, and one for controversies. What do you think about having at least two articles, one strictly devoted to the philosophy, and another devoted to the Foundation, its work, and its controversies? MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are more familiar with Aesthetic Realism than I am, so I would probably defer to your judgment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll suggest that we start a second article, and hold off on a third unless and until the second article grows unwieldy. I'd like to help with a ground-up rewrite of this article, and the creation of the second article, but I won't have any time until October at the earliest. Of course, I don't expect you to wait until then if you're eager to get started, though I'm not sure whether you and Outerlimits alone will be able to combat the Aesthetic Realists' efforts to block each and every improvement you try to make. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearly unmanageable at this time. The best hope as this stage would be to bring the issue to the attention of the neutral point of view noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the NPOV Noticeboard doesn't appear to have any enforcement powers, what would be the point of going that route? I checked it, and I see long-winded discussions with no resolution, same as here. By using the noticeboard, we'd simply be moving our fruitless discussions to a different page...unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something? MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The neutral point of view noticeboard is not a very good option. But poor option that it is, it's still probably the best option available in the circumstances. I doubt ANI would be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only venue that might be able to exert enough power to enable the cleaning out of this Augean stable is the Arbitration committee. It would be an excruciatingly long procedure. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to try to get Arb Com to take an interest, if you think that's a better option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that at this point I don't think I have the patience required to do anything but play a supportive role in any such pursuit. I do think that extraordinary measures are needed, but it's very difficult to get such measures enacted. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We have to go through a proper mediation first before we can apply to ArbCom. Here's my suggestion: When I have time (two months from now at the earliest), I'll post drafts of a rewrite of this article and a split-off article, inviting experienced and fair editors like FKC and Outerlimits to help me get it right. Once it's good, I'll post them as the new articles. The Aesthetic Realists will object immediately and unreasonably, reverting everything willy-nilly. After a few revert-restore-revert cycles, we'll apply for mediation. Mediation will fail because the Aesthetic Realists won't agree to a proper article and we won't agree to a ridiculous one. Then we apply to ArbCom, which can compare the new, proper articles to the travesty that's currently posted, and it should be pretty easy for them to make their decision. How's that? MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can take whatever approach you like to improving this article, obviously. I'm not sure whether your proposal above is a good one or not, but I'm glad you still think it's possible to do something. I haven't given up yet entirely either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

Since all attempts to improve this article continue to be reverted, I have started a discussion about the article's problems at the Neutral point of view noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. I hold no view for or against Aesthetic Realism; indeed I came to this page to find out what it is after coming across a reference to it. Yet I was really put off by the way the piece appears to be written as a promotional brochure or press release for the philosophy. It is really very different from an encyclopedia article on a philosophical school of thought. It appears to go out of its way to spotlight alleged achievements, mention alleged mistreatment by the press, and rebut vaguely sketched criticisms. Indeed all the criticism even mentioned appears to concern homosexuality. Where is the scholarly debate about core approaches and concepts? Really weak as a wiki article - I learned very little.TheCormac (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a good reason there is no scholarly debate here about core approaches and concepts, because the organization and "philosophy" is not considered important or serious enough to have generated any such scholarly debate. So there are no academic papers which can be cited; papers treating this organization aren't much more sophisticated than The New York Post. The group is known solely through their self-promotion and advertisement, and for the criticism that they provoked by their allegations about curing homosexuality. They became a local news story in New York City when featured on the David Suskind TV show, but that was the pinacle of their fame. There's a very good reason why the criticism centers around their "answer to homosexuality" claim: it's what got them their really only major media exposure, and it's what they are most known for. Note, TheCormac, that FreeKnowledgeCreator's comment is three years old, so there's no current attempt at improvement underway, largely because of rabid editors who will not permit points of view other than that of Aesthetic Realism's followers to receive due attention here. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)