Talk:Conversion therapy

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

many broken links

All broken citations:

• Drescher 2006
• O’Connor & Ryan 1993
• Lewes 1998 Please check this one. I found a publication that fits [1], but it could be a typo with "Lewis 1989"
• Jones 1955
• Stanton 1991
• Young-Bruehl 1988
• Gay 2006
• Katz 1976
• Terry 1999
• Bergler 1956
• Bergler 1962
• Marmor 1965
• Hooker 1957
• Bieber 1962
• Ellis 1962
• Ellis 1965
• Socarides 1968
• Kronemeyer 1980
• Moberly 1983
• Norcross, Koocher & Garofalo 2006
• Bayer 1987
• Freud 1992 (there is a "Freud 1991", mistake or different papers?)
• JonesandYarhouse 2007
• Spitzer 2004 (there is a "Spitzer 2003", mistake or different papers?)
• Kirby 1957 (maybe a confusion with "Kirby 2003"? Kirby, Michael (2003), "The 1973 deletion of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder: 30 years on", Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37 (6): 674–677, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2003.01269.x {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))

I fixed:

• Domenici 1995 (you have to cite all the authors in "last1", "last2", "last3", etc,):
• O'Connor & Ryan 1993 (it was using "’" in one place and "'" in the other, they are different characters to represent the apostrophe)

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

P.D.: Install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to spot these errors very quickly. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. Thank you. - MrX 14:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all.

All cites are now fixed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Renounced" vs "Reassesed"

I fail to see why we are using a blogs interpretation of the retraction of the study. Actually I fail to see why this blog is in the article at all. Besides the obvious fact is is not a RS, its author is not an an academic. Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the primary source of the retraction and it's wording, which is "retraction"?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources help establish notability, and offer an analysis and deeper understanding. In this case, the specific word 'renounced' is used by several secondary sources, so it seems to be a reasonable word to used. - MrX 03:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Which sources use this besides the blog entry that was recently added? In any case, I think we should remove the blog.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see one source given in support of "renounced": Huffington Post - obviously not neutral. "Withdrew" or "recanted" are good neutral and accurate alternatives, and that's the sort of language we should be using here. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "retracted" is the exact word we should be using. It doesn't mean that he is throwing the whole study on the scrap heap, such as the other words indicate. It simply means he is withdrawing his conclusions from the scientific community.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

truthwinsout.org, skippingtothepiccolo.com, New York Times, World News, politic, alwrinkles.com, diversityvillage.com, iit.edu, thinkprogress.org, regator.com, portlandpsychotherapyclinic.com, chicagotribune.com, richarddawkins.net, newsworks.org, scpr.org, emergence-international.org, religiondispatches.org. That's just a sampling from the first 50 Google hits out of about 16,000 results. - MrX 03:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind removing the blog entries from the Huffpost and use one from the NYT/CT?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The online news story (not a personal blog) is a perfectly valid source. I have added a second, print source, that uses the same word. - MrX 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The HuffPost is not a newspaper but an opinion site that occasionally reprints articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, we shouldn't use the NYT for this. I recognize most of those sources as biased on sight, without even checking. Come, dude. You bring us Truth wins out? And then you pretend to be a neutral editor?

The problem should be obvious - "renounced" carries connotations of condemnation, which is not neutral or accurate and shouldn't be in our article. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One, we have to utilize the sources available to us, and not editorialize. Two, CT is a pseudoscience, almost universally condemned by professionals. We're unlikely to find sympathetic sources which meet standards. You're confusing "NPOV" and "SPOV" (sympathetic) I think. Neutral doesn't mean not calling bad things bad, or pseudoscience pseudoscience, and so on; nor does it mean writing things from the proponents POV. It means writing the article from a dispassionate and factual POV, based on RSs. And the NYT is a RS, Belchfire. KillerChihuahua 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We lived in a biased work, and I have yet to see a news source that is not biased. Here is another source: "...prominent psychiatrist Robert Spitzer renounced his famous 2001 study claiming that some gays could become straight via so-called reparative therapy." - Philadelphia Inquirer

- MrX 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Even neutral sources occasionally use biased language. That doesn't mean we have to repeat the error here, and we especially shouldn't do so when their choice of words is so clearly over the top. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it "over the top" please? I don't see it. KillerChihuahua 03:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

'Renounced' is over the top? Spitzer said, "I was quite wrong in the conclusions that I made from this study. The study does not provide evidence, really, that gays can change. And that’s quite an admission on my part." That sure sounds like a renouncement to me. - MrX 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Experience in academia might lead you to a different conclusion. However since the sources say this, I'm fine with the word.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the zing, I guess. - MrX 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant the body politic aspect. Not your schooling.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Body politic of which country that rules academia, again? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I'm really not following your reasoning here. KillerChihuahua 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Academics are often quite petty, childish and overly sensitive. But we never get that here, right? <g>  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you meant it as an allegory or comparison. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, I was confused as to what you meant. KillerChihuahua 04:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is such a thing as journalese. Ever heard a real-life human being use the word "slain"? Probably not, but you can read it in the newspapers every single day. This is a similar case. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I have indeed heard people say "slain" but that oblique comment of yours clarifies things not a whit. KillerChihuahua 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"The problem should be obvious - "renounced" carries connotations of condemnation, which is not neutral..." Given the fact that "conversion therapy" has been condemned by every professional organization qualified to comment on the issue, I fail to see the problem here. We don't do fair and balanced and we certainly don't present psuedoscience as a disagreement between equals. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue here is the author of one study, not the pronouncement of the relevant professional community.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It all comes down to overall objective. If the objective is to neutrally describe CT and it's history, then different language is needed. If the objective is to use Wikipedia as a platform to further discredit and marginalize CT... carry on, we're doing a fine job so far. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an academic, I think the word "renounced" is an accurate and entirely reasonable term to use to describe Spitzer's statement. However, as a Wikipedian, it seems to me that this debate might be ended by avoiding either term in favour of Spitzer's own words. How about...

In a 2012 statement, Spitzer described his conclusions regarding the efficacy of conversion therapy as "quite wrong," stating that his "study [did] not provide evidence, really, that gays can change." He added that "that’s quite an admission on my part" and went on to apologize to the gay community for making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy, calling it his only professional regret.

Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That might work, but it should be followed by a summary of the statement from NARTH pointing out that Spitzer was acting under duress [2], and we should also note that the publisher,Archives of Sexual Behavior, has refused to withdraw the study because it says there is nothing scientifically unsound about it. In fact, if we can cover the duress part properly, I'll even assent to putting back "renounced". ► Belchfire-TALK 11:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Including NARTH's opinion on the matter would be WP:UNDUE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so whose response do you propose to include? ► Belchfire-TALK 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is not always a response worth including, and this appears to be one of those cases. KillerChihuahua 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the account being presented is one-sided and, perhaps, partly fabricated, it seems to me that telling the entire story is absolutely essential. After all, we're aiming for a neutral and factual article, right? ► Belchfire-TALK 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We are aiming to tell the reader that this topic is derided as pseudoscience, and why. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Spitzer's quote is already in the article. I think 'renounced' provides a very accurate, succinct, neutral summary of his words. I am also strongly opposed to providing a counterargument to Spitzer's renouncement, as it would be entirely undue. There is no "other side of the story" He renounced his work. There is not a (factual) story that says he did not renounce his work. - MrX 13:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; there is no appropriate counterpoint to his renouncing of his paper. He didn't recant his renouncement. KillerChihuahua 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the NARTH link, it presents no evidence supporting a claim of duress or coercion. It has conjecture and opinion, but I see nothing that would warrant mention in the article. The Editor's view is relevant, in my opinion, but NARTH distorts what he meant. MrX, my suggestion was in place of the paragraph with the quote, not an additional use of the quote. EdChem (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That was my understanding as well. My concern was that the quote alone is insufficient, and would omit important context, especially the part about retracting his own work: "Spitzer has requested that all "ex-gay" therapy organizations such as NARTH, PFOX, American College of Pediatricians, and Focus on the Family stop citing his study as evidence for conversion therapy."- MrX 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning that Archives of Sexual Behavior stands by the paper and won't retract it, and the reason why, would probably be sufficient. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

MrX, you're right - I meant to replace the start of the paragraph, I didn't mean to remove the part you quote. Belchfire, the important part is the reason why... retractions of whole paper s are generally cases of fraud or falsified data. Papers aren't retracted over data interpretation, and especially in a case like this where commentary and critique raising the issues was published with the original paper at the time. Spitzer now judges those critiques as largely correct. All, I think better quotes are Spitzer's actual apology from the letter to the editor. NB: the renouncement includes Spitzer speaking of the original paper's "fatal flaw," which is pretty clearly a renouncement. EdChem (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment - Pray the Gay Away

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Request for Comment here is simple: Should the term "Pray the gay away" be listed as an alternate name for this therapy in the article - and if so, should it be boldfaced in the first sentence? The term is used a lot, arguably more than the official conversion therapy name, but other editors have objected to it for being slangy and pejorative. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Weak include - This is definitely a tricky issue. And policy does not give much guidance. I was able to find this bit: WP:POVNAMING. This is what I found most relevant, "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." And then this part, "Instead, alternative names should be given 'due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate." So the real question is what do the reliable sources say and how prominent is each among them? For the record, Google searches do get used in debates about article content, especially with regards to redirects and disambig pages. Though to be fair, they can be unreliable. So here's my preliminary research:

Regarding the redirect

• Google search of "pray the gay away" "our america" produces 71,500 results.
• Google search of "pray the gay away" "conversion therapy" produces 255,000 results.

This seems clear to me that the redirect Pray the gay away should point here.

Regarding the article lead

• Google search of "conversion therapy" homosexuality produces 307,000 results.
• Google search of "pray the gay away" homosexuality produces 1,040,000 results.
• Google search of "reparative therapy" homosexuality produces 236,000 results.

This indicates to me that the most used name for this practice is "pray the gay away".

One could argue that the article name itself should be changed based on these results, but keeping with the scientific theme in Wikipedia and within the article, I think it should be fair to include something along the lines of, "or pray the gay away by critics" within the lead. Unless contradictory evidence is provided, that is my opinion. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include as a synonym. I would oppose naming the article 'Pray the gay away', but it should redirect here, as it's a generally recognizable term, and it unmistakably refers to this subject. FurrySings (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Don't include. What a sad, sad comment on Wikipedia that it is even necessary to discuss this subject. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia, not a playground where people can rubbish a therapy that they don't like by using slang, popular culture terms as though they had the same status as terms used in scientific literature. The article is meant to reflect what reliable, scientific sources say about it's subject - and it should use the terms for it they use, which don't include "pray the gay away." That should be the end of the issue. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a scientific subject - it's pseudoscience garbage. And even real science has cultural issues that go far beyond the scope of mere science, such as evolution. Obviously teach the controversy belongs in a evolution article, even though evolution is science and teach the controversy is not. Same here, cultural responses to this pseudoscience matter, and one of these responses has been to name it "pray the gay away". Ego White Tray (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether conversion therapy itself is scientific is neither here nor there. The relevant question is what sources that are scientific call it, and that doesn't include "pray away the gay." The use of that particular, vulgar expression of conversion therapy by some of its critics is a very minor point for the article. It does not belong in the lead, which summarizes only the important points. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientific sources are less relevant than others because THIS ISN'T SCIENCE. We're discussing an article about a pseudoscience and you're demanding scientific sources? That's crazy. The pseudoscience of this has reached the point where many scientists refuse to research or publish anything having to do with this. This isn't a scientific topic, it's a society and religion topic. I would bet that you couldn't find a single thing anywhere in Wikipedia policies that says we should only use scientific sources. Because it isn't there, you're just making that up. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

[3] )Legal, not medical, source) KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hebradaeum, while I understand your reaction to including something with such a strong connotation, you have to understand that Wikipedia does not exclusively use "scientific" sources. They need only have a "reputation for fact checking". Consider the utility of the matter. When users type in "Pray the gay away", they're redirected here, and presented with an article that doesn't have any mention of the phrase they actually typed in. This is unfair to them, so I think it's necessary to include it within the first sentence to confirm that yes, this is the page they're looking for. It's not really our place to pass judgement on the most common name by excluding it entirely. Rather than trying to dismiss our good faith efforts, I think it would be more constructive to propose some ways you think we could properly balance the first sentence, once it's included. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why "pray away the gay" should direct to this article - the fact that it currently does do this doesn't mean that's the way things should be or must be. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason you see no reason to redirect there is your continual choice to ignore overwhelming evidence. We have Google searches that show this phrase used for conversion therapy way more than the Lisa Ling show. We have citations to legal journals, which is the type of formal writing required to be valid in your apparent opinion. A source doesn't need to be scientific to be valid, especially for this topic, WHICH ISN'T SCIENCE. Big Bang was a term invented by critics to insult the theory - should we change the name of that article? Ego White Tray (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

[4] - Psychology journal uses the phrase and clearly equates it with reparative therapy. So even your "no scientific sources" claim is wrong. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet searches show how often a term is used on the internet, not necessarily in the real world. Plus, they don't show that "pray away the gay" is a term used for non-religious forms of conversion therapy. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Our evidence, shakey as it may be, is infinitely more trustworthy then the absolute lack of evidence you've put forward to support your view. Consensus building does not mean that you can simply say, "nope," you have to try to convince us as well. So how would you establish how these phrases are used? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include: Commonly used exact synonym of conversion therapy found in many relaible sources, notable enough to be mentioned in the lede. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Dominus Vobisdu, it is not an "exact synonym of conversion therapy." Conversion therapy includes many different forms of treatment, ranging from aversion therapy and behavior modification to psychoanalysis, that are not religious, and in particular, do not involve prayer. How, then, could it possibly be reasonable to say that conversion therapy's critics call it "pray away the gay"? Do they do this, in your view, even when discussing totally non-religious forms of conversion therapy? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still a synonym. The only reference to "pray the gay away" that anyone has found in this discussion that isn't about conversion therapy, is to a TV show about conversion therapy. It's clear that the phrase doesn't mean anything else. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include. Perhaps something like: "also known as pray the gay away in popular culture".--В и к и T 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What I had placed earlier was "...and derided by critics as pray the gay away..." Ego White Tray (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But not all "critics" actually call it that, so why imply, wrongly, that they do? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good thing he didn't suggest that, then. He didn't say "all critics" or "most critics" he said "critics" with no modifier, which IMO would be found by any reasonable reader to mean that it was critics who said that, not that all critics have said that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely Don't Include - The article only makes one reference to prayer of any nature... this is absolutely inappropriate for this article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But considering that it is almost always religious groups endorsing this, the word "pray" is hardly a stretch. And this is not about what we wish people would call it, it's about what they do. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Conversion therapy includes many non-religious forms of therapy that have absolutely nothing to do with prayer. So, it's obviously misleading say that it is derided by critics as "pray away the gay" and if any kind of common sense was to be found on Wikipedia, we wouldn't even be discussing this subject. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, that's what critics think. We don't omit stuff because we wish it wasn't true. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, you have no interest in portraying conversion therapy truthfully or accurately. Fine then. The discussion is over. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That is straw man bullshit and you know it. Critics call conversion therapy "pray the gay away." That is the truth. That is what they actually call it, so it's accurate too. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include as a colloquial synonym, per FurrySings. Miniapolis (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Leave redirect only, as that covers anyone searching for the term, and do not include; or else include as "derided by critics as..." (still keeping redirect, obviously.) In order of preference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to a compromise. Create a subsection that explains that this is a colloquial phrase used to describe it by those outside the movement, and then redirect the other page to that subsection. I have a problem labeling it as such when those within the movement would reject the colloquialism. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Don't Include Perhaps the slogan could be reported as used by some when speaking of conversion therapy, but conversion therapy is not advocated on such simple terms. The "therapy" does not have the support of the scientific community but it bases its approach on the interpretation of scientific and psychological principles. Some conversion therapists have done harm to their clients but it is not because they advocated praying for them. Many view homosexual behavior as a choice to be made or not made; not just miraculously solved through prayer. This kind of labeling is trivial and does not represent the advocates for the practice. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How is only including terms used by advocates compatible with maintaining a neutral point of view? Ego White Tray (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include I see this phrase used, at times exclusively, referring to conversion "therapies" which are now under pending legislation in the US to make illegal. They are chiefly tied to extremist religious groups and as such pray the gay away is an accurate if unintended comical portrayal of proponents' beliefs. Reliable sources should lead the way in how we present this facet of the subject. Insomesia (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely wrong. "Pray away the gay" implies that conversion therapy is the same as prayer, which is not the case - it involves all kinds of things, ranging from sitting on a couch talking about mommy and daddy, to having one's genitals zapped with electricity, that have nothing to do with prayer. So, the term is stupid and inaccurate, there should be no need to discuss whether the term should be added to the lead as a synonym for conversion therapy. Adding it is just a beautiful example of why Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be taken seriously - maybe Wikipedia should be renamed Micky Mouse-ipedia? Hebradaeum (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. I also didn't suggest doing anything that wasn't supported by reliable sources. And yes, the basic concept including electrocution et al is included by some as simply praying away the gay. Its a fallacy that on the face of it sounds innocent enough but involved real life long term abuse to real people. I support adding the phrase with due weight as supported by reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is a link to possible sources for "Pray away the gay". I agree that we need to let sources lead the way on this so these may help. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There are apparently two common synonyms in use, "Pray away the gay" and "Pray the gay away". The second seems to be more common (sources). FurrySings (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include: Commonly recognized reference term for conversion therapy. WP is to inform. Including the term aids finding the article . Simple.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For the sake of this discussion, I'm treating "pray away the gay" and "pray the gay away" as identical. These phrases are similar enough to get identical treatment. Only one would require mention in the article, since the other would be obvious. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] The phrase "pray away the gay" is apparently widely used, and thus the term should be mentioned in the article. Should it be boldface in the first sentence? No, it doesn't appear to be an official synonym, but instead is more of a colloquial or slang alternative. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the Lead section, in 2nd or 3rd paragraph, but not bold in the 1st sentence. --Noleander (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface As per Noleander. The term is in common use but it is not an exact synonym or a proper technical term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface As per previous editors. However the article should identify the possible bias, something like "...and derided by critics as pray the gay away..." as per Ego White Tray or "also known as pray the gay away in popular culture" as per В и к и. The article should also mention that prayer is not the only treatment included in this therapy. - Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems very strange to note that conversion therapy is sometimes called "pray away the gay" and then immediately add that that is an incorrect term for it, since conversion therapy includes methods that have nothing to do with prayer. Actually, there is no evidence at all that "pray away the gay" is used as a term for conversion therapy per se as opposed to specifically religious methods of changing sexual orientation that do involve prayer. Which is why there is no reason it should be mentioned in the lead. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing odd about that. It is a jocular or pejorative term commonly used by critics. There is no reason we should not inform readers of that fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maclean's uses "pray the gay away" as a term for conversion therapy[5]. So do PBS[6] and Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology[7]. The The San Francisco Chronicle states that "Practitioners often are religious, and gay rights groups have derisively characterized the therapy as an attempt to "pray away the gay." " [8] The Huffington Post states that "The American Psychological Association has repeatedly repudiated reparative or conversion therapy techniques (also known colloquially as "pray the gay away" techniques)"[9] Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't include. Prayer is not conversion therapy. Prayer is a personal relationship with the Divine, notwithstanding anything fundamentalist and evangelical groups may assert. Conversion therapy is not needed for something which is not listed in DSM-IV.Whiteguru (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Problems here start early

I'm two sentences into this article and I already see significant problems. For something to be called "pseudo-scientific" it has to have pretensions to a scientific basis in the first place, something like, say, phrenology. Yet here we have something that at the begining of the article is nicknamed "pray the gay away," linked to fundamentalist Christianity, and thus, it would seem to me, is based on faith rather than on pseudo-science. Of course, when I look down the page I see early examples of "conversion therapy" which seem to have little or nothing to do with religion so the whole thing seems rather a mess. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You should call up the authors of the first five references and argue with them. Wikipedia goes with reliable sources, and they say that this stuff is pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it would make more sense to argue with those who, in all likelihood, probably purposely picked out sources that specifically called it pseudo-science. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh, that's what you're supposed to do when making a claim: cite specific sources.

Also, you may want to read up on the subject. Yes, it primarily comes from a religious origin. Some of the practitioners, however, are claiming that they have a medical basis for their therapy. That opens them to scientific scrutiny, and their "science" doesn't pass the smell test. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I may want to read up on the subject but I don't really need to in order to observe that the second sentence of the lead says "Such therapies are associated with Christian fundamentalist groups and are derided by critics as 'pray the gay away.'" Leads are supposed to preview the main points of the article, but there is relatively little in this lengthy article that connects conversion therapy to "Christian fundamentalism" or "praying the gay away." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of that has been moved to sub-articles, due to length. That leaves most of what's here to be the pseudo-scientific claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Umh . . . so what? That still leaves us with a lead that would have the reader believe that Christian Fundamentalism has been, and continues to be, the great purveyor of "conversion therapy" and an article that doesn't deliver the goods. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not linked to "fundamentalist Christianity", it's only its opponents trying to make this link. The proponents pretty much pretend to scientific status. 78.8.2.35 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dianetics

I have a copy of Dianetics which claims it can be used to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, if they choose too. 24.94.251.19 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? Hebradaeum (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)