User talk:Skoojal

Hi

I added a discussion topic to the Arthur Janov talk page. The topic involves the recent dispute about whether or not to include the DebunkingPrimalTherapy on Janov's biographical page. ThanksTwerges (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Added something...

to the Arthur Janov discussion section, which you may be interested in. Twerges (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Primal therapy

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ultra! 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have given my reasons for the edits I made on the talk page. I do not need your condescending advice. Skoojal (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to help, Skoojal

Hi, Skoojal. Could you please be a bit more careful with your edits?. Here [1] you even truncated the word "memories" and deleted a lot of sources. I understand your position about the exact wording for the article and I understand this issue is very important for you. I tried this approach [2] trying to settle the issue. Please let me know if you find it is unsatisfactory and why. Yours Randroide (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault

Please occasionally chime in on the AIDS debate on the Talk Page; I have picked up where you left off. The more votes on the correct side (ours- the sourced position), the better. Thanks 38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect usage

It is not correct to say "homosexual" in place of "gay and lesbian." The preferred terminology is gender-specific. FCYTravis (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are colloquial. They also convey a positive understanding of homosexuality that is not appropriate to a neutral article. Skoojal (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is your point of view, not Wikipedia's. "Gay" and "lesbian" are neutral words correctly applied on this article. I note that we've both reached our three revert limit for the evening, so the talk page would be the best place for you to get a consensus for making these changes. FCYTravis (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you would direct me to a page that doesn't even mention the word 'gay' and which states, 'This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.' Most people don't think 'gay' is neutral, and they're right not to. Skoojal (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Most people don't think gay is neutral?" . FCYTravis (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very funny, except that talk pages aren't wikipedia articles. Skoojal (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except you're taking your talk page view ("gay isn't neutral") and enforcing it on Wikipedia articles. So, yeah, if you're taking that view outside talkspace, . The proper place would be on the article talkpage. Start a discussion and gain consensus for your edits. FCYTravis (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'gay' was popularized by the modern homosexual rights movement. How non-neutral can anything get? Why would homosexuals insist on calling themselves 'gay' if the term didn't suggest a favourable view of homosexuality? Skoojal (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'African-American' was popularized by the modern ****** rights movement. How non-neutral can anything get? Why would ******* insist on calling themselves 'African-American' if the term didn't suggest a favourable view of *******?

The term 'Jew' was popularized by the modern **** rights movement. How non-neutral can anything get? Why would ***** insist on calling themselves 'Jews' if the term didn't suggest a favorable view of *****?

See what fun that argument can be? FCYTravis (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider anything you wrote above to be a relevant argument, or an argument. Skoojal (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not replace "gay and lesbian" with the term "homosexual." Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edit count | edit summary usage

Please don't be arrogant and tell me what to do. Skoojal (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing concerns

1. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 05:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm engaged in an edit war. No hiding that. I'm well aware of the three revert rule, thank you. If you yourself don't have the power to block me, you are wasting your time telling me that I can be blocked. I wait with interest to see what, if anything, you will have to say on the talk page. Skoojal (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is time for you to pursue dispute resolution on this issue, as at least two editors are at odds with your recent edits. Please do not make the changes to Conversion therapy without doing so. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 05:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edit count | edit summary usage

Dispute resolution sounds fine, in principle. Which of the several different forms of dispute resolution do you suggest? I am trying to discuss my disagreements with you on the conversion therapy talk page, but this seems to be making little progress. Skoojal (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked for 3 hours due to consistent edit warring without taking your concerns to dispute resolution. Please reconsider this issue and act accordingly upon your return to editing. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actions like this change very little. After all, what makes you think I necessarily want to edit during the next three hours anyway? And can I ask why it is me who is being blocked for edit warring rather than any of the many, many other people who do the same thing? I'm afraid this looks like an abuse of administrator privilege. Skoojal (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel invited to have my edits and actions on this matter reviewed as well. I asked you to use dispute resolution, but instead you chose to continue edit warring, and even admitted to intentionally doing so. These forms of edits are disruptive and not in keeping with wikipedia policy. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you asked me to use dispute resolution, but you could equally well have asked others to do the same (and again, just what kind of dispute resolution do you consider appropriate?) Several different people were edit warring on that page, and you were one of them. Skoojal (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A belated welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Skoojal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it does have its conventions and practices and ways of working. You will find a lot of information that will help ground you in the links provided above.

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

To answer part of your question...all edit wars are not appropriate. When desiring to make changes that other dispute, it is best to resolve them with the other people. If you do not come to a new consensus in the process, the old consensus stands. I hope this helps. Best, Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 05:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it helps. I was blocked for violating consensus. Could have said so more directly. Skoojal (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for intentionally carrying on an edit war. Happy editing, Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, the next time I find myself carrying on an edit war it's going to be accidental. Skoojal (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleuze article

I don't follow your grounds for objecting to the parenthetical about Sokal. "Snide" and "inappropriate for an encyclopedia" are judgments that are too vague to decide, or irreducibly subjective. Please refer to Wikipedia's editing standards, not what you feel. "Pace" can be easily (though less elegantly) rendered into English thus: "Similar considerations apply to Deleuze's uses of mathematical and scientific terms, contrary to the views of Alan Sokal." That's not snide, it's an observation of a fact, for which I have provided a verifiable, published source, and included the relevant quotation in full in the footnote. If you are concerned about NPOV, note that Sokal's views are given due weight later in the article, without objection or "snideness". Part of NPOV is a fair hearing to both sides of a dispute, which is just what this sentence does. Indeed, if this sentence was removed, the article's NPOV would degrade, since Sokal's views on this particular topic would be the only ones aired.

The sentence about Bacon is quite important as it provides (literally) an illustration of the fairly abstract discussion of the preceding sentences. Also, the sentence about Sokal makes less sense without it. Many articles draw parallels to clarify and explain topics. And it is, again, sourced. Perhaps I can rewrite it to make it less objectionable. (But then, it would help to know exactly what your objection is -- "it certainly isn't right for an encyclopedia", while telling me of your certitude, doesn't give any reason why the sentence shouldn't be there.) The discussion by Deleuze is lengthy (and frankly a bit tedious), with no simple quote saying "I am doing exactly the same thing as Bacon is doing." Give me some time and I will see if I can find a way to make the article better. 271828182 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What counts as fact and what counts as opinion can be disputed. What you write about Sokal looks like opinion to me. That you have a source for this does not necessarily justify it, since it may be only that source's opinion, which makes including it a violation of neutrality. That Sokal's views are mentioned elsewhere in the article, without their being said to be either right or wrong, does nothing to balance the flat assertion in that section that he is wrong. The problem is that the mention of Deleuze's use of mathematical and scientific terms is so brief that it's impossible for the reader to form an opinion whether Sokal is right or not - they just have to trust your source (and of course your interpretation of it as well).

You could at least re-phrase that part so that it looks less pretentious: one italicised word, a word that not everyone would even understand, should not be forced to do the work of a normal sentence. The part about Bacon looks like name-dropping. Skoojal (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, your objection to the Bacon parallel seems to be little more than a subjective feeling on your part ("looks like name-dropping") rather than anything substantive. As Deleuze himself discusses and draws inspiration from Bacon's reinventions of past masters, it is a wholly appropriate and informative way to explain the topic. However, you have clarified the problem about the Sokal sentence, and I will try to fix that. Thank you. 271828182 (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Irving Bieber

Please see the New York Times article used a reference, as per 'Dr. Bieber's study helped bring candor to the discussion of homosexuality, but his view of it as deviant behavior was controversial even then and has since been disavowed.'.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disavowed by whom? The article has to make this clear. Just saying that it has been disavowed is no use. Skoojal (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is "of some use". It is valid information, referenced with a citation. Whether you would want more information or not is another matter.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an unacceptably vague and sweeping claim, and doesn't count as 'information' at all. It should not be in the article and it is wrong of you to reinsert it. Skoojal (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See the article, that is enough to back up the assertion on here. You could read The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality by Kenneth Lewes if you wanted to learn more about Bieber, and how he was disavowed. As for an edit war, I see you have already been blocked on wikipedia - I have no time for inane pugnacity.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand the problem. Saying that someone or something has been disavowed does not mean anything because it is too vague. The problem is the vagueness of the statement. Things cannot be 'disavowed' in general, but only by particular individuals or groups. Incidentally, why are you talking about Bieber being disavowed? This is supposed to be about his book. Can't you even make up your mind which it is?

Also, to correct two misapprehensions you seem to be under, 1. I am perfectly familar with Lewes's book, and 2., I am not currently blocked. How do you think I edited the article? Skoojal (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bieber compares homosexual patients who are hospitalised - through the accounts of their therapists - to regular heterosexuals who are not hospitalised. The critic I cited points that out as a bias in his analysis.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but for the article to say that the study has been criticised, 'for examining homosexuals already in analytic treatment as opposed to regular heterosexuals' still sounds confusing. Couldn't this be re-phrased? Skoojal (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be concise. How would you like to rephrase it? Perhaps 'regular' sounds vague.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little too concise. The article ought to spell out in more detail the grounds Bieber's study was criticised on - exactly what was wrong with 'examining homosexuals already in analytic treatment as opposed to regular heterosexuals'?And 'regular' isn't the best word to use. Skoojal (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one group is in treatment and the other one isn't, that's not neutral... If you remember from reading the Bieber book, the homosexual patients suffer from all kinds of psychological disorders - schizophrenia and so forth - while the heterosexuals don't. I think what the critic is trying to say is that if the heterosexuals he had chosen had also been in treatment for schizophrenia and so forth, they would have been equal and thus comparable. Same thing for the fact that he got the info from the heterosexuals directly while he got the homosexual answers from their therapists.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop POV pushing

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:LGBT, you will be blocked from editing. Davodd (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop what, exactly? What 'portions of page content' are at issue, aside from that template, which I only edited once, as a protest? Saying that I mustn't 'blank out or delete portions of page content', is unhelpful if you can't explain exactly what that means. Which portions of which articles are you talking about? Skoojal (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Primal Scream

Please do not introduce biographical detail into the article on the book. Nor is it appropriate to lengthen the text by saying what words and what letters are in capitals in various places. I do appreciate some of your rewording for precision, and I made a little of it more concise. Please find the exact published sources for the positive reviews from the jacket As for handling the negative criticism, I'm thinking about it. I'm also trying how to make the references more concise, since they are all from the same book. I am aware of some unhelpful changes by others, and have made appropriate comments in appropriate places. DGG (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the wikipedia policy saying that biographical details cannot go into articles about books? The biographical detail is part of the book. Please explain why you think it is not appropriate to say what words and what letters are in capitals - there's no point in telling me not to do something if you won't say why. Skoojal (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight, and coatrack. And common sense, and the basic principle that this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for publicity. The names of his children have nothing at all to do with the book he wrote. How they are "part of the book" in any non-superficial sense is beyond me. The person who a book is dedicated to is only relevant content for the greatest masterpieces, such as Shakespeare's sonnets. We're not fools altogether here. DGG (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a limit to how much I want to argue about this - you're right that one has to have some common sense. I don't believe that Janov's book is one of the greatest masterpieces, something on the same level as Shakespeare's sonnets. Still, it is a book of great importance, and it's a shame if what some might consider minor details can't go into an article about it in cases where they show something interesting about its author, as I think the dedication does. Skoojal (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP Warning May 2008

You have made an edit to Frederick Crews that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Considering the fact that you deliberately added defatory material[3] to a biography of a living person knowing that it was dubious under site policy[4] (when you say on your user-page: "This was partly an attempt to find out what it is and is not possible to get away with on wikipedia: just how critical could I be of Crews before someone decided that I had gone too far?") I'm warning you with a level 1 {{blp}} template. Further violations of site policy in this regard may be followed by blocks to prevent defamatory material being added to wikipedia biographies.

If you are concerned about this please ask a sysop for a review of this warning - I have notified DGG of this myself--Cailil ^talk 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, it doesn't matter what you or wikipedia do, or whether any particular material remains in the Frederick Crews article or not. I pointed this out a long time ago. Skoojal (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal it does not matter whether you have the moral high ground or not. What you've done is an abuse of wikipedia. You have brought your own good-faith into question by doing this. I'm going to ask a sysop to review your reply above as it likely violates BLP--Cailil ^talk 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. I am totally unconcerned, since it makes no ultimate difference. It's beyond me how what I say here, or on my user page, has anything to do with BLP policy; neither my talk page nor my user page is a wikipedia article. Skoojal (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy on this

1. . BLP policy is absolutely explicit that it applies everywhere in wikipedia. There is somewhat more tolerance on talk pages and user space, for we often need to discuss the issues of BLP. But unsourced defamatory material about a living person must be removed. For the full policy, see See [5]
2. . I am however not at all sure that the statement above, as a mere expression of the opinion of the ed. about the person, is worth asking that it be removed. In any case, though, I accept that Skoojal was not aware that the policy applies here. It's a common oversight.
3. . With respect to earlier edits, the insertion of negative statements about living people sourced only to blogs is unacceptable. They have been, properly, removed. Unless they are reinserted, I don;t think there's any action required. DGG (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There never was any 'insertion of negative statements about living people sourced only to blogs', as a look through past versions of the Frederick Crews article will confirm. The quote from Andrew Sullivan (actually there were two different quotes) did not come from a blog. They came from Slate, an online magazine that is not a 'blog.' Skoojal (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the first of the two quotes being 'defamatory', I'm not sure what to make of that. There are much worse things in the criticism sections of other controversial writers. The article on Camille Paglia mentions Gloria Steinem's comparison of her to Adolf Hitler. Are you concerned about this, and if not why not? Skoojal (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider the material in Slate as sufficiently reliable for these purposes, for the extremely negative & unsupported expressions of opinion in the quotations used from it. -- however, you are right it is not a blog. In any event, I am not sanctioning you or even warning you for using the quotations. I am just advising you not to reinsert them, for I will sanction you for that. DGG (talk)

• Skoojal, I warned you about this many months ago and made it very clear that you may not continue to hijack the article in this manner. If you do not immediately stop adding material to the article Frederick C. Crews that violates the WP:BLP policy, you will find yourself blocked from editing. And just to make it completely clear again, you may not make defamatory statements anywhere on Wikipedia which does include you own user and talk pages. If you are unsure if something violates this policy, please ask first because any further violations will garner sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you did warn me. And you may note that I have not added anything to the article on Frederick Crews lately. I consider your editing of my comments an over-reaction, and note that DGG did not agree. The deleted part of my comments can still be seen in the history of this page, and I hope you won't penalize me for pointing that out. Skoojal (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read DGG's comment #1. And yes, pointing out that your comment can still be viewed is intentionally defying the spirit of the policy. Seriously, whatever your beef is with this guy, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Stop it. Shell ^babelfish 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

INAH 3

Please do not edit the INAH 3 page to say that "It has been suggested..." or interpret the findings. First of all, this was not a case study, it involved many subjects. Variables were not controlled in the way they are in experiments in the physical sciences because that is impossible in the social sciences. However, they were accounted for as best they could be. The source that is used states that the findings implicate the area as a substrate with regards to sexual orientation. I never claimed it was the sole source, so your anti-Gay POV is not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.236.222 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me what my POV is. You know nothing about it (but of course, if you want to know, I will tell you, and in some detail too). You may be under the impression that biological determinist explanations of homosexuality are somehow pro-gay, but you are quite wrong. You also may be under the impression that scientific findings somehow speak for themselves or 'suggest' things independent of human interpretation, which they do not. Only people can say that anything suggests anything. If you read LeVay, you will see that he has admitted that the size of INAH3 may be only an effect, not a cause, of sexual orientation. I will therefore be undoing your edit. Skoojal (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to stress the point - INAH3 size can't be an 'important biological substrate with regards to sexual orientation' if it is an effect rather than a cause of sexual orientation, as LeVay has admitted is possible. Skoojal (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

However, Lavey aslo interprets the results as indicating that the INAH 3 is a biological substrate with regards to sexual orientation. I'm reporting on the paper. If you are going to insert another interpretation, you need to cite it. Also, feel free to tell me your POV on homosexuality, I would be most interested in hearing it. C0h3n (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote LeVay or what you are saying is of no value. I repeat that he has admitted that the size could be only an effect of sexual orientation. I'm not 'interpreting' anything; simply pointing out that people have interpreted the finding this way, which is correct. No findings 'suggest' anything by themselves. Skoojal (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

However, would you be pointing these things out on the Heliocentric Solar System Theory page? Besides, you still do not have a source for this. It is common practice for scientists to anticipate criticism and defend their interpretation, which is what Levay did in his paper. I do not have immediate access to the article so I cannot quote it. However, I have read it and he comes to the conclusion that I reported. This is not a philosophy article. Levay is the source and he interprets the results this way. Unless you have another study on the INAH 3 or a source that disagrees, it should remain in the vein of Levay. Also, do tell your POV on homosexuality. C0h3n (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First, concerning my point of view on homosexuality, I suggest you contact me by e-mail if you want to know what I have to say. Wikipedia is not a good place for me to explain this. Second, you have not answered my argument, and don't seem to understand it. That LeVay has suggested this interpretation is exactly what I am pointing out. It's wrong to say that any finding 'suggests' anything because a finding cannot speak; only people do that. Take a look at what I've said on the article's talk page. Skoojal (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email concerning your views. Hoping to hear a reply soon. C0h3n (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon LeVay

It appears from your talk page that I am not the first to come here with a plea for you to calm down a little and try to be less rigid about interacting with others. You obviously have a strong POV on a number of gay and lesbian matters. Please try to work with me on some of your edits. I don't take issue with very many of them, but you have made a great deal of effort to downplay the extensive criticism of LeVay by scientists and historians. Thanks for your work on this article, and I look forward to working with you to find a version on which we both agree. Jokestress (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can make what you want of the stuff on my talk page. I wouldn't advise you to get into a discussion with me about it; most of it is quite off the point for this issue. You obviously have a strong POV too. I did not remove all the criticism of LeVay you inserted into the article; some of it is certainly useful. Other parts though were muddled or misleading, and it had to be changed in the interests of basic fairness. Skoojal (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Section length

Greetings. To alleviate any potential conflict, I just wanted to expand on what I put in the edit summary to explain why I changed the John Paulk article back. In WP:SECT (under "Section size policies") it says in part: "Nevertheless, a proper section size is probably somewhere between 80 and 500 words.". In addition, WP:SIZE (under "Readability issues") says in part: "An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation...". The article in question is about 1500 words and is over 3 pages in length. So while it's possible the article is a special case, I'd suggest you seek some sort of consensus about that on the talk page, because the Manual of Style suggests the article should be split into sections roughly the way it is now. Zahnrad (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't immediately undone your change. I will have more to say about this on the article's talk page in due course. In the mean time, I note that your undoing of my edit perhaps inadvertently changed back a rewording that I considered necessary. I have changed that part. Skoojal (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, quite right. "Shedding" seemed inappropriate, I just forgot to change it. Are you sure "overcoming" is the best alternative? To some people it may imply that homosexuality is a disease or affliction that someone "overcomes". I'm not particularly concerned with the specific wording though, just offering a suggestion. Zahnrad (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

'Overcoming' is the word that ex-gays are most likely to use, hence the best and most neutral term. They don't talk about 'shedding' as far as I know; it sounds ridiculous. Skoojal (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the way the article is organized, I am giving this issue up; it's just not that important. Skoojal (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Headword convention

Regarding your edits to Fellatio: Wikipedia's convention is to put the first use of article headwords in bold text. Please see Wikipedia:LEAD. -- The Anome (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't mention brackets. I have felt free to remove them, since I consider them bad style. Skoojal (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

I just want to thank you for the many wonderful edits you have been making lately on articles about (roughly) post-structuralist thinkers. I really appreciate what a careful and contentious attention you've given to giving many of these a clearer biographical focus. It's kinda making me feel guilty I haven't done more lately on many of those same articles (but I'm not sure my schedule will let me help all that much... perhaps). LotLE×talk 08:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is going to be done with these articles remains to be seen. Maybe you should wait to see how things develop before thanking me. Skoojal (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

primal scream

please use some judgement--overdoing detail is counterproductive. DGG (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to any relevant policies. I will simply restore this material if it can't be shown to conflict with policy. Skoojal (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I noticed your edits changing the use of the phrase "conversion therapy" to "reparative therapy". I understand that you consider "reparative therapy" to be one specific type of conversion therapy; you stated that you find the use of "conversion therapy" as a synonym for "reparative therapy" to be "dangerously vague".

Currently, the conversion therapy article does not distinguish "reparative therapy" as a certain type of conversion therapy. If you feel this is in error, perhaps Talk:Conversion therapy would be an appropriate place to raise your concerns. It appears that the current consensus is that "conversion therapy" is a synonym for "reparative therapy", and that "conversion therapy" is the preferred term (as it is the title of the article). In the absence of a consensus for distinguishing "reparative therapy" as a specific type of conversion therapy, I have reverted your edits. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The "current consensus", if there is one, is just wrong (and the fact that a Wikipedia article says something doesn't mean that there is a "consensus" it is true). You're making a foolish error here. Skoojal (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm glad you have started discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy, that is the best step to take. I personally don't feel qualified in this area, but I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, hoping that some other editors will weigh in. I know that some of the members of that project have put a lot of work into the article. If no consensus is reached, consider a request for comment. I would also suggest trying to avoid getting into an edit war, try and reach consensus first. All the best, --BelovedFreak 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor is doing something that in my judgment is clearly wrong. He or she put a totally misleading construction on an article by Warren Throckmorton, falsely implying that Throckmorton is the person who coined the term "reparative therapy" or that he is the only person who uses it, and this definitely needs to be remedied. 66.30.20.71's editing is muddying the waters, creating confusion where none need exist. Skoojal (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That implication exists only in your mind; I stated only how Throckmorton uses the term, not that he coined it. Whistling42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be preposterous. Your choice of words clearly implied that the term belonged to Throckmorton, as if he were the only person who used it. It was misleading and totally inappropriate. Skoojal (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Kenneth J. Zucker

Please be careful with your generalizations. I see no reason to declare that "articles [in general] should not use the word 'controversial' in such prominent positions." It is enough to say that the use in this article was unnecessary and possibly biased. Cstaffa (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Generalizations happen. Skoojal (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacan & Castoriadis

Quoting the French Wikipedia: "À partir de 1964, Castoriadis devient membre de l'École freudienne de Paris, fondée par Jacques Lacan, auquel il s'oppose dès 1967... En 1968, Castoriadis se marie avec Piera Aulagnier. En 1969, il quitte l'EFP. Il participe à la formation du Quatrième groupe. Castoriadis commence une deuxième analyse didactique avec Jean-Paul Valbrega et commence à exercer comme analyste à partir de 1973." A significant portion of his "Crossroads in the Labyrinth" is a critical article on Lacan. Whether that is manifest influence is open to debate, including whether Castoriadis's ideas were significantly Lacan-influenced, so I've no strong feelings as about the Influence summary in the article. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

CFP was a cult?

The Center for Feeling Therapy was about psychotherapy. It is only a 'cult' within a revisionist definition of that term,

The CFP was a cult according to the judge who presided over the malpractice suit against its founders. It was a cult according to both of the scholarly books written about it, one of which was subtitled "portrait of a psychotherapy cult". It was a cult according to the then-foremost expert on cults, Dr Louis West, who participated in the lawsuites against it. It was a cult according to a large fraction of the former participants who filed suit against it and labelled it a cult in their testimonies and in their interviews with Mithers. It was a cult according to the text of the CFP section in the primal therapy article before I was even an editor here.

no matter how strongly you may feel that it should be attacked by being labeled one

Calm down. I don't "feel strongly" that the CFP should be "attacked". I don't care about the CFP one way or the other. I'm summarizing the source material.Twerges (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

People toss the word 'cult' around in a very loose way. I don't approve of this. You obviously feel it is important to label CFP a cult, or else you wouldn't be doing it. Skoojal (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed

You have not provided sources for your usage of the terms "reparative therapy" and "conversion therapy", despite the fact that I have requested sources many times. In the absence of a source that justifies these edits, I have reverted your edits to Conversion therapy, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, and Joseph Nicolosi. Please do not reinstate them without providing reliable sources. I have requested a third opinion in the interest of getting this resolved.

Also, please do not reinstate the use of a Wikipedia article as a reference as you have done several times now. You keep reinstating "See Conversion therapy#Ethics guidelines" as a reference to support the following sentence. "The ethics guidelines of the mental health establishment discourage, and sometimes prohibit, practicing conversion therapy." Use of Wikipedia articles as sources is prohibited. Check the policies, do not reinstate this. Whistling42 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I directed you to a relevant source: Joseph Nicolosi's Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. If you could be bothered reading this book (I note that you have not answered my question as to whether you have read it), then you would see that yes, reparative therapy is indeed used as a term for a particular kind of sexual orientation change therapy. There is no doubt whatever on this point. You seem to be embarrassingly misinformed on this basic matter. As for the two APA sources, they do not offer any relevant definitions, and in fact support my point that reparative therapy is sometimes loosely used as a synonym for conversion therapy. Skoojal (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page is the place to discuss articles. Please stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. Whistling42 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)