Talk:Conversion therapy

Jimbo's comments

I think this comment from Jimbo is helpful:

“ If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. ”

sexual reorientation

I'm noticing that in the literature "reorientation therapy" is used as a synonym for "conversion therapy," but this is not in the terminology section. If we accept this, then other sources come more easily into play. Hyper3 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sexual modification therapy" too. Hyper3 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I will start adding them in soon. Hyper3 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Other sources come more easily into play". No, they do not. This is the conversion therapy article and should be based on sources that discuss conversion therapy, using that term. BG talk 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about a term, its about an idea. Get used to it - that is the inevitable conclusion. Hyper3 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about an "idea" because nobody can agree what "idea" conversion might be. That is the inevitable conclusion. BG talk 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about a "term" because there is no such thing as a term without an idea. And sorry about the silly "get used to it stuff" I was being annoying. Something you've already got used to no doubt... Hyper3 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So you think that there aren't terms that no one can agree how to define? BG talk 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Terms are defined by their use within a context. To the degree to which meaning can be assigned by their context, is the degree to which it is being used rationally. If there is a debate about its meaning, which is often the case, then the debate itself may well illustrate the best explanation so far of the meaning of the term. If the term is not being used rationally, then there is doubt over whether a wikipedia page should be given over to it. Are you saying that conversion therapy is not being used rationally? Merely noting conflict does not make it indeterminate. Hyper3 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need a lecture from you about how to define a term. There is no agreed upon definition of conversion therapy and "context" doesn't change that. BG talk 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have made the above statement. Conflict about a term does not stop us from using the best definition available. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to enlighten people who are confused. Hence the entry should note how a term is used, (even if not totally rationally) using the ideas that form its context, and any other terms used similarly. Or we could just cover our eyes and hide, and hope the nasty terminology problem goes away. Hyper3 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way of determining the best definition. "Using the ideas that form its context" to do so would be original research (and for what it's worth, contexts don't consist of "ideas"). BG talk 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is original research to do anything other than what I have said - so original that nowhere else on wikipedia can you find such a disruptive approach. Hyper3 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What an idiotic and arrogant reply. You offer no reason for your position whatever. BG talk 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Invective, invective. So we are to conduct this conversation with insults? Do you want me to reply in the same way? Hyper3 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Give reasons for your views or your comments are a waste of talk page space. BG talk 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So you've given up entirely on politeness. Alright, I'll save my comments for the mediation page. Hyper3 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in some exchange of insults with you here (or elsewhere). I repeat, however, that you do have to give reasons for your views if you want to convince other people. BG talk 06:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism

Hyper3 has, once again, removed the mention of Christian fundamentalism from the lead [1], giving some totally mistaken reasons. The result of that was to make the lead look vague and stupid, so I reverted him. It's totally absurd for the lead simply to say that Conversion therapy is promoted by "religious organizations" - what the heck does that mean? It could mean anything, and readers would be left to wonder whether we're talking about Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, or whatever. What Yoshino actually writes is, "In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations. These include fundamentalist Christian groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland." So obviously, Yoshino is concerned especially with Christian fundamentalists. Removing this information from the lead is unacceptable. BG talk 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yoshino is wrong - for example Exodus is not predominantly fundamentalist. Its a technical term and has certain meanings - something you are very keen on. Yoshino is not a theologian, and may not be expected to get things like this right. It makes the lead look foolish to anyone who understands these things. If you really want fundamentalist in, then make a longer list including Evangelical and Catholic. This is a classic moment where editors with different skills make an entry better, where needless squabbling for control and aggressive micro-management creates obvious error. Hyper3 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No Hyper3, you're wrong. Yoshino's article is a reliable source. What matters is what he thinks, not what you think. Our goal is verifiability, not truth. You've already stated in past discussions that you know that (eg, in "Moving forward with the article", above), so it's becoming clear that you are acting in bad faith. BG talk

I understand your point, but because it is the lead, I think I am still right. Firstly, where in the article is it discussed whether those who are pro-conversion therapy are fundamentalist, Catholic or evangelical? Wherever this occurs, the lead should summarise it. Your quote, which is dead wrong, should not dominate the lead but it should appear in a subsidiary place in the article where it can be discussed by quoting further sources. Do you really want me to add to the lead an argument about the definition of "fundamentalism"? I will if you want... Hyper3 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY applies everywhere in the article, including the lead. The history section needs to be rewritten as a summary of Yoshino's discussion of the history of conversion therapy, since he is the only appropriate source for that. When that happens, the history section will contain a proper discussion of fundamentalism (defined as Yoshino defines it), and the statement in the lead will be an appropriate summary of that. BG talk 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want a definition of fundamentalism by a lawyer... So currently the lead does not summarise what is in the body on this issue. I think you should withdraw the reference to fundamentalism until there is a place for this to be addressed. Hyper3 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why by a lawyer? Why not a lawyer? You could equally well ask why we should write the history of conversion therapy using an article by a lawyer. The answer is that it's the only source that sets out to discuss the history of conversion therapy, and thus the only source that can be used in accord with WP:NOR. I intend to rewrite the history section of this article using Yoshino as a source, and when that's done, the lead will serve as a proper summary for the article. Removing the reference to fundamentalism in the meanwhile would simply be silly.BG talk 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BG - keeping to wikipedia guidelines is silly now? Hyper3 (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What guidelines are you talking about and how do you think they support you? BG talk 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests the lead should be a summary of important aspects of the article: if it is not in the body, it should not exist in the summary.Hyper3 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this. It will be added to the body. There is no point to removing it from the lead, because it will only be added again in due course. It would be inconsistent to remove the reference to fundamentalism from the lead because it's not in the body without also removing Haldeman's view that people have the right to choose conversion therapy if they want it from the lead - that's not in the body either. BG talk 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite history section

The history section of this article suffers from several obvious defects. It is much too long, is poorly organized, and places far too much emphasis on minor details that are of little importance to the subject as a whole. Most of the information in it would be more appropriate to other articles, and it does a poor job of explaining overall trends and developments within the field of conversion therapy, as well as its current situation. It is sourced to numerous sources that do not refer to conversion therapy, and so conflicts with WP:NOR, as well as with the due weight requirement of WP:NPOV. I therefore propose that it be replaced with the version I've been working on in my sandbox here [2]. I will not do this immediately myself, because I am engaged in mediation and have promised not to make further major changes to the article for the time being. BG talk 05:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(If I rewrite the history section as suggested, I would add a picture of Socarides to the gilded age section. I can't put the picture in my sandbox because it's not a free image and non-free images can't be used in user space). BG talk 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait to do major rewrite until the scope of the article is determined. Your history seems to rely heavily on the fact that ex-gay groups are SOCE. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to do the change right away. However, if you don't agree with my proposed version, it's up to you to suggest other ways the history section could be improved - supposing you agree that it does need improving. BG talk 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than shorten the history section, a new page should be created called "History of conversion therapy." BG you know we were still talking about this, but you couldn't wait could you? Keep working on the whole collaboration, politeness, consensus building thing and we'll get there in the end. Hyper3 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex-gay section

Some progress was made in this section, and a change was agreed, but has not been implemented. Could The Wordsmith do the change? Hyper3 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You would do better to ask him that directly. I'd like to ask whether unconstructive changes such as that made to the lead recently by Tdinatale can be reverted. Actually, there wasn't 100% agreement how the section should read; I proposed a version slightly different to that suggested by The Wordsmith, so it would be better to wait for further discussion. BG talk 08:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the one change for which consensus is obtained has been made. I went with BG's proposal, since they both accomplish the same thing, and the difference was small. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy for pedophile priests

The treatment of clerical child abusers has been a source of conflict around the United States and at the Saint Luke Institute. Clinicians who treat offenders often agree that abusive priests cannot be cured but argue that relapse studies suggest that some offenders do respond well to treatment and, although they are not cured, they are less likely to re-offend. Thus, these clinicians argue not for a cure but for successful treatment. [3][4] ADM (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of your comments? What are you suggesting? BG talk 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was mentioning the fact that a big part of the US priest abuse scandal involved a controverisal form of conversion therapy for abusive priests, a therapy that was later abandoned due to social pressures and the realization that pedophiles cannot be changed even by hormonal therapies. Certain conservative bishops mistakingly confused pederastic clergy with homosexual clergy and adopted classical conversion techniques which ultimately failed on the welfare of thousands of American children. ADM (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you proposing for the article? BG talk 06:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that the article could briefly mention the Saint Luke Institute and explain why its methods have proven to be controversial. ADM (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. BG talk 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Polite and collaborative, as always. Can't have someone else trespassing on your page, can we? Hyper3 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Well now I've started with a sockpuppet case. I'm sorry if this is a bit boring for anyone who has to witness this, but I think I have uncovered evidence for Born Gay being the banned user Skoojal. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you look back you will see a very similar pattern of editing and commenting. Sigh. Hope I'm right, or I'll have to do a lot of apologising. See this and this and this.Hyper3 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason to apologise. I am Skoojal. BG talk 20:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BG - out of interest, what is your motivation with all of this? You seem to be a complex character! I feel I have unmasked Zorro. Hyper3 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had my reasons. Doesn't matter what they are now. Wikipedia hasn't heard the last of me. BG talk 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Throw me a few crumbs. I've been arguing with you for months... Hyper3 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it is the admitted sock puppet of a disruptive editor, and that he has admitted using a deceptive username, and to have strong views on this topic, and seeing as how he has exerted ownership over this article, would it be appropriate to roll the article back to an earlier version?   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

JJ, Boweneer, Mish, any thoughts? How far could you roll it back - he has been involved for years in one form or another. Hyper3 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is sad to me--I just don't understand why someone would want to do this kind of thing.

Yes I have no problems with "starting over". What I'd like to do is be able to discuss the article and make sure that all sides of the issue are represented. I have already said I had serious NPOV personal issues with this topic, so perhaps I'd prefer to not directly edit the article, but review materials and post my thoughts on the talk page. Is the article going to become a redirect to SOCE?--Boweneer (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Which version do you suggest we move back to? I agree that BG was taking ownership of the article, but others have made contributions. We should be able to revert most of it. Boweneer, I still feel that conversion therapy is only one type of SOCE, but I am open to discuss it. My main problem was the double definition that BG was trying to promote. I do appreciate your comments and hope now we will be able to incorporate the changes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I haven't really followed this article closely and have no opinion about BG's edits. I'm just reminding users here that BG's edits may be summarily reverted without any further justification. He's clearly made editors waste a lot of time debating with him.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It will be hard to find a good point to roll back to. I think the best thing to do is to do it section by section. Knowing that we can revert his edits without any further justification will help a lot. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Said it before and i'll say it again: this article is shit and will remain shit. Carry on making it up as you go along, wiki-morons. Accuracy Crucified (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I also feel it is only one type of SOCE, in that these cluster of therapies are relatively "recent" as far as human history goes, and that I think sources will overlap definitions. I don't think they are discrete yet as terms, and the sources would be "stronger" grouped together as one article at this point.

Now, I think a potential bone between us will be the religious origins of these therapies. I think that if the article makes it clear somewhere that there is a dynamic tension between religion/spirituality and homosexuality, and the choice between seeking gay-affirmative therapy vs. SOCE therapies most likely hinges on that tension, I will be satisfied.

So I personally think a redirect to a comprehensive SOCE article with integrated criticism, a clear statement that this is a minority position (but one that seems efficacious for some individuals), and outlines the missteps as well as advances, I will be satisfied.--Boweneer (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that many sources overlap, and it would be stronger to use all of them. However, I do think that there are things that are clearly specific to CT. I think this article can focus on that, while the SOCE can incorporate all of the overlapping sources and can carry the strong case. Once I have time, I will try to beef up the Reasons why they change section so that the religious component is more clear. I have tried to summarize your points on the SOCE page. Let me know if I misunderstood you. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I guess I should state again that in today's world, I think it's pretty clear that there are many resources for both "sides" of this discussion, and the Wikipedia article should just report on what's what, and not push a certain side.

On the sockpuppet note, I went to Skoojal's talk page and looked back through the history. Wow. That was enlightening. I guess it's easy to get WP editors who want to own and article because of their off-wiki RL expertise and/or experience. Still sad to me. I view editing here as a way to learn.

When I get a chance, I will read over both articles more carefully and reply back with my opinions here.--Boweneer (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention, Boweneer. I am trying to help people like you, I really am. PS, does anyone else think it's weird that some of the comments by my other sock puppets are still here on this page, and elsewhere on Wiki? It pays to look carefully! Liberty Against Domination (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)