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)

Homophobia category

Joshuajohanson, you removed the Homophobia category here [1]. That was a mistake. Please read what the category page says - the homophobia category is for articles that refer to the topic of homophobia. This article does refer to the topic of homophobia. So, please do not remove the category. You don't have any case for removing it. BG talk 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What part of this article refers to homophobia? The word homophobia does not appear in the article, and it is not discussed in any length. The only connection that I see is the talk about people and organizations who want to prevent LGB people from living their own lives and prevent them from seeking professional help and forcing them to turn to questionable sources that are not overseen by the medical industry. That is homophobia. But unless this article specifically relates the two concepts, it doesn't belong in that category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, I think historically that sources can show that organizations promoting conversion therapy are homophobic. They tend to be conservatively religious, and find homosexuality sinful and have sometimes promoted violence and discrimination against GLBT people. I don't think the article should avoid the history behind this therapy; a way to force GLBT people to be straight so as to avoid sin. There are many sources such as [2][3][4][5][6]. I do support the article stating neutrally why certain people seek these therapies, but the history of this therapy as well as the damage it has done to people should be in the article as well if it is to be accurate.

In any case, I think that your position as well as Hyper3 represents a newer and more realistic perspective; the trouble is, it only takes a quick Google search to find that the organizations who either promote these organizations and/or this therapy have views that are homophobic even today.--Boweneer (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is OR to assume just because someone is conservatively religious they are homophobic. Also, just because some people who support it happen to be homophobic doesn't mean it is homophobic in and of itself. As I said, not even the strongest advocates support any attempt to "force GLBT people to be straight", unless you go back to Alan Turing era. Also, transgenderism is a completely different issue. You know that some transgender people are straight, right? This only affects GLB people, it does not affect GLBT people. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, Which is why I have no intention to actually edit this article. This subject is incredibly volatile with very strong partisans on both sides of the issue. I happen to disagree with most of what you have said, and the links I chose above represent what *could* be sourced to use to add to this article, and that was just a quick search on my part. I am trying very hard to understand your views and ideas on the talk pages. Again, I do not want to enter the actual "battlefield," because my ability to remain neutral is compromised by personal experience.

I simply state what my POV is; that the majority of the push for this kind of therapy comes from conservative religions, and previous history shows that from many sources. What you've stated above is your opinion. I respect that. However, this history of homophobia, sin and conservative religion is more recent than Alan Turing, and can even be shown. I think that unless you can accomodate some of what BG and other editors on the opposite side of the argument see, this article is just going to continue to be contentious; and I imagine the SOCE article will end up in the same boat.--Boweneer (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that because the article refered specifically to homophobia the category was appropriate. It definitely did refer to homophobia in past versions but that seems to have been removed; I don't know when that happened. I would still request that you not remove the category for the time being, however. The category will become appropriate again as soon as a mention of homophobia is added to the article, which could happen at any time (and probably should). BG talk 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until the time which the article talks about homophobia. I would have to see the talk about homophobia, to make sure it passes NPOV. There are lots of people who like to throw around homophobia about anything. But that is a discussion for another time. For now, it should not be in the homophobia category until there is mention of homophobia in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No one should be either adding or removing the category at the moment because we are still supposed to be having a mediation. As a gesture of good faith, please postpone this discussion and leave the article the way it is for the moment. BG talk 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Careful review of these studies could be useful to show the link between conversion therapy and homophobia Why Do Individuals Seek Conversion Therapy? Weighing the Evidence: Empirical Assessment and Ethical Implications of Conversion TherapyReflections from the Conversion Therapy Battlefield. Consider also that it can be shown from some studies that there is internalized homophobia in those who seek these kinds of therapies.

Again, I think it is important for this article to not just be a description of the positive aspects (like the APA quote that Joshuajohanson has pointed out), but that there have been serious and negative side effects to people pursuing these conversion techniques, as well as a realistic assessment of the religious organizations behind the organizations involved in SOCE and conversion therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boweneer (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism

Hyper3 has, once again, removed the mention of Christian fundamentalism from the lead [7], 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)

Edit to the lead by Tdinatale

The recent edit to the lead by Tdinatale here [8] violates WP:LEAD, which explains that articles need to establish the notability of the topic they are concerned with in the first sentence. I accept that it was a good faith edit, but it was not an improvement and needs to be reverted. I won't revert myself right now because of the mediation I'm involved with. BG talk 22:25, 2 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 [9]. 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. [10][11] 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)