Talk:Aesthetic Realism

Talk:Aesthetic Realism/sources

Controversy tag

I placed this tag under the discussion of homexsexuality because the claimed "fact" about reverting to heterosexuality remains controversial today, and AE can not escape its past. Bearian 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for placing the tag. The tag says that it's misplaced, and should be moved to this Talk page. I haven't done so myself because I'm avoiding editing the article myself as part of the assumed truce between the critics and proponents of AR, since my editing the article could start another edit war. I'll edit the article only when AR supporters censor crucial information or introduce distortions.

I don't think the article claims that the gay cure is "fact". It carefully attributes such beliefs to the people who believe them. If someone says they *believe* in a gay cure, then it's a fact that someone *said* they believe in a gay cure. And that's pretty much what the article says. I think it's encyclopaedic in that sense.

What's missing is the fact that many (probably the overwhelming majority) of people who initally said they were "cured" of their gayness by AR, have long since resumed identifying as gay. The article does a good job of presenting the cure from the perspective of a successful cure, but says far too little about how many/most sooner or later decided they were still really gay after all. -MichaelBluejay 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I moved the tag off the article just because the template isn't supposed to be used on article page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further observations

This is my first visit back to the Wiki entry on Aesthetic Realism in a year, since the last time I attended an event at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation and decided to post some of my personal observations about it after reading this article. My girlfriend and I attended another event there just last Sunday so I thought I’d find my way back here to write some further reflections.

Surprisingly, I saw for the first time the two postings about my last remarks that appear a little bit above. The writers seem to have very active imaginations and to be rather strong conspiracy theorists, casting me (completely erroneously, I might add, for any who really care) as a “sock puppet” or a phony “average Joe.” One of these fine folks thinks it is “as obvious as an elephant in a bathroom” that my initials are AP. That would surprise my mother, who named me, even more than she would be surprised by finding an elephant in a bathroom!

In any event, there is one thing I am happy to agree with them about. "Enough nonsense!" Here then are a few more of my avowedly “man on the street” impressions for anyone who cares to read them.

This particular program was called “Rock ‘n’ Roll, the Opposites & Our Greatest Hopes—a Celebration!” And was it a celebration! The boisterous, cheering crowd was so huge that it stretched out the door and a repeat performance (to come this October) had to be announced at intermission for all of those who just couldn’t get inside. Having been to a few other such programs at the AR Foundation, I knew enough to get there in plenty of time in order to get a seat!

The popularity of this particular program, in my opinion, was well deserved. The performance was “high class” in every way, and extremely professional. And the juxtaposition of the music with verbal explanations of it from the vantage point of aesthetics was not only wonderfully educational but also added so much more emotion and appreciation to one’s hearing of the actual songs when they were then performed. Two of my favorites were “Rag Doll,” sung by Kevin Fennell and others, and “You’re So Vain,” sung by Ann Richards and others. Many of the male singers expressed heartfelt gratitude for their marriages and, when Timothy Lynch did so, and then sung “Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You,” the depth and conviction of his feeling actually brought tears to my eyes even though I don't know the happy couple.

AR makes a great deal of the opposites, which, as I take it, it understands to be the basic stuff of existence. The speakers/singers who spoke about and performed popular rock n’ roll songs such as “Earth Angel” and “Runaround Sue” tried to illustrate the AR concept that beauty is composed of opposites that have been “made one,” and that people as such are also trying to make the same opposites one in them and can be instructed by art how to do it.

There was a deep and impressive explanation given for John Phillips’ (of Mamas and Papas fame) song “Monday, Monday.” When the singers asked about what this confusing song actually means in an Aesthetic Realism Class (and pointed out that John Phillips himself said he didn’t know), the person teaching the class explained to them that it is about how a person starts out fresh every morning hoping for good things but then discovers that some of the same old things they don’t like about themselves still get in the way and frustrate their hopes. After hearing this explanation I felt as if I was listening to the song (which I’ve always loved) for the first time when it was then sung. The words fit the explanation to a tee in my opinion—and I also realized they were about things I have felt as well and that maybe that is why I liked it so much.

There was also a presentation of a lesson that a rock musician once had directly with Eli Siegel which was really fascinating. Eli Siegel spoke to him about how Rock ‘n’ Roll puts private and public together and you could really see by his answers and demeanor how this particular person was struggling to do exactly that. And then, as the program went on and different songs were performed, the singers explained how each song was also about private and public. The logic seemed sound to me, and very, very interesting.

I enjoyed it and everybody else who was there seemed to enjoy it too. Aside from one couple who I saw leaving at the intermission (for reasons unknown and probably quite innocent), the audience was really into the music as well as the explanation of it. Considering that it was a hot, humid August afternoon in Manhattan—the kind you like to spend sipping lemonade (or something stronger) in your nice air-conditioned apartment---I’m glad I made the extra effort to be there. I’m not into music all that much. That’s my girlfriend’s passion. But I really had a good time. Whenever I’ve gone to the AR Foundation I’ve found it to be decidedly worthwhile.

I’ll do more posting here the next time I decide to attend a program at the AR Foundation. user: digital scribe 17:51 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, but the purpose of this page is not to share thoughts and observations about the subject of AR. This page exists only to discuss improvements in Wikipedia's article on AR. Since original research is not allowed, personal reports like this are useless to us. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, digital scribe, for that heartfelt report. However, since you are only marginally acquainted with AR, you may want to ask class chairman Ellen Reiss how many times she's been married. I remember Reiss going on and on about how grateful she was to Siegel for her marriage to her then-husband, whom I shall refer to as DT. DT would often write about his romantic, beautiful marriage to Reiss, all made possible by Siegel and AR. So be sure to ask Reiss where is DT now. While you're at it, ask anybody involved with AR how many times they've been married -- including those who expressed "heartfelt gratitude" for their marriages at the lovely and moving presentation you attended on that hot afternoon in Manhattan (after all, Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana, so why not New York?). See if you can find any examples of these wonderful marriages that survived after one of the spouses left AR. Also, you may want to take a look at the "Countering the Lies" website and read for yourself how AR cult members speak about their own family members who have left AR. Then go back and find Ellen Reiss' writings about how AR makes marriages and families stronger. It's not hard to do, they're all over the AR rag, TRO. Then ask yourself whether perhaps you're being duped. Marinero 08:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement category

I consider it justified to remove the ex-gay category from this article. The article makes it clear that Aesthetic Realism does not currently promote attempts at converting homosexuals to heterosexuality. The fact that it once did so, I don't consider relevant; categories should reflect the current status of something, not its past history (for instance, no one should be categorised as a Catholic simply because they were once a Catholic, if they later abandoned Catholicism).

Furthermore, the term ex-gay, properly speaking, has a rather narrow meaning, and I don't think it fits Aesthetic Realism. Although the term "ex-gay" is used in the article to describe Aesthetic Realists who abandoned homosexuality, there's nothing to show that Aesthetic Realists have ever used that term to describe themselves, so it seems extremely misleading. Skoojal (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd missed your discussion here when I posted below. As for your first assertion, as a matter of history and sound practice once a person or group fits into a category there's no reason to delete them from it. For example, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom is still in Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom even though he is no longer king.

Regarding you second point, which is addressed below, I don't know from where you are getting yuor definition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument above is totally mistaken, in my view. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone that at any time was anything should continue to be categorized that way, even if they stop being it? For instance, would you want to categorize someone who used to be a Catholic as a Catholic? The case of EdwardVIII and other monarchs has absolutely nothing in common with this. Special cases where doing what you suggest is appropriate don't justify doing it in general, and certainly not in this case. Skoojal (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: granting that this is not a topic I know a lot about, I don't see that Aesthetic Realism was ever designed or intended as an Ex-Gay movement, but rather that it was picked up by some group or groups at a later point as a way to convert gays. the ex-gay practice does not seem to be an inherent part of AR, and so it probably shouldn't be included directly (though those groups that used it that way probably should be categorized that way). --Ludwigs2 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this whole movement thing. If the article isn't in the "ex-gay movement" category then it should be in a comparable article for conversion therapy not part of a movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the ex-gay organizations category. I note that you redefined the category itself - presumably so this article would fit into it. I undid that as well. It's better to discuss major changes like this before making them. Skoojal (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, an emotionally-charged rally that gets you teared up and super-excited? Gosh, how many organizations do this? MLM-scam companies, religious groups, sales-based organizations, etc. it's all designed to get you to drink the bitter kool-aid as if it were lemonade. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker it would appear. The difference between us and animals isn't are emotions--they have emotions as well. It's our logic. Try using it. --74.34.209.213 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ex-gay

One of the organization's main claims to fame was its assertion that it successfully converted homosexuals to heterosexuals. For that reason it belongs in Category:Ex-gay movement. If anyone can think of a better category then that's fine too. But it is inappropriate to remove it from the category tree entirely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, with all respect, that's not really a response to my argument above. Ex-Catholics aren't categorized as Catholics, so why should an organization that formerly encouraged people to abandon homosexuality be categorized as part of the ex-gay movement? In any case, the term ex-gay is usually applied to a religious, specifically Christian, movement that opposes homosexuality, and there's no indication that Aesthetic Realism is part of that movement or ever was. Skoojal (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, Ex-gay forwards to Conversion therapy, which is defined as:

• Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals and bisexuals to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors. Techniques that have been tried include behavior modification, aversion therapy, psychoanalysis, reparative therapy, and religious counseling. The term reparative therapy is sometimes used loosely as a synonym for conversion therapy in general.[1][2] Some forms of conversion therapy are closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is explicitly religious.[3] Ex-gay groups tend to focus primarily on avoiding same-sex sexual activity, and secondarily (or sometimes not at all) on changing the underlying orientation.[4] Conversion therapy and the ex-gay phenomenon occasionally appear in popular culture, usually in a satirical or skeptical context, for example on Penn and Teller's television show Bullshit!.[5]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. I don't see any mention of Christianity. If you don't think that this article belongs in Category:Ex-gay movement then where does it belong? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ex-gay article does not say that the ex-gay movement and conversion therapy are the same thing, if that is what you're implying in your comments above. The fact that the ex-gay article doesn't mention that the ex-gay movement is Christian does not mean that this is not the case. Anyway, you still have not replied to my argument against the ex-gay category. Skoojal (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any source for your assertions. The bottomline is that this organization belongs in an "ex-gay" related category. If you don't like the one that it's in then find a better one. Deleting it outright doens't serve any good purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any source for your assertions either, except for the not-entirely-reliable Wikipedia (I'm partly responsible for the current definition of conversion therapy, for what it's worth - you quoted something I rewrote at me). I suggest researching the subject - there is something that can be called an ex-gay movement, and Aesthetic Realism isn't part of it. 'The bottom line' sounds like a refusal to engage in further argument, which is regrettable, as your arguments thus far have not been at all convincing. As for categories: Aesthetic Realism has a couple of others, besides ex-gay movement. The argument that it has to be placed in some category is thus irrelevant. Skoojal (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article itslef discusses the history of this movement as an advocate and provider of conversion from homosexuality. I haven't seen any sources for this movement not being a member of the ex-gay memvement, or indeed, any discussion of who is a member of this movement. It appears to me that it is the viewpoint of an editor, not based on reality. While I think it's not optimal, I'll create a category to cover this organization, since the logical category is being deleted again and again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for not including Aesthetic Realism as part of the ex-gay movement is that it isn't now part of the ex-gay movement. That it was never part of the ex-gay movement could also be argued, but that's a secondary concern. It would be frankly ridiculous to include anything as part of the ex-gay movement that was ever involved with changing homosexuality - by that standard, psychoanalysis would also have to be categorized that way, but no one would ever succeed in an attempt at doing that. Skoojal (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we'll make a "Former ex-gay organization" category. Any sourced objections to that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's a category that makes little sense. Can you point to any existing categories for organizations that used to promote something but that now no longer do? Skoojal (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See March of Dimes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that article is relevant. Oh and by the way, I've just nominated the conversion therapy category for deletion; I don't think categories should be created to score points in disputes like this. Skoojal (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to score points, I'm trying to find a solution. Please assume good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to basics, let's see what pops up in a search:

• Pity the lot of the Aesthetic Realists, a New York-based group with fewer than 200 members who are mad at the New York Times because the Times, they claim, refuses to print a story that 123 homosexuals have changed (to heterosexuality) through Aesthetic Realism. In fact, the AR people are so mad they've been bombarding the Times' city desk with more than 65 calls a day demanding that the story be run. Not just that - they have also taken to holding vigils in front of publisher C. L. Punch Sulzberger's home and those of other top Times officials, and to staging little protests in the Times news room. It's really quite funny, in a sad sort of way, a friend at the Times tells us. They come in a couple of times a week - three sorry-looking guys flanked by two women. The guys wear signs around their necks saying something like 'I used to be a homosexual but Eli Segal (founder of the AR movement) saved me.' At least they had an identity when they were gay; now they look as if they've been put through the laundry. The Times, we understand, is holding to its rise-above-it-all stance and has no plans to publish the story.
  • "FYI Put those fears away, all citizens-to-be" Robin Green. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 28, 1978. pg. P.8

• About 250 persons rallied on Boston Common yesterday to demand that The Boston Globe "print the truth about Aesthetic Realism," a New York-based educational foundation that claims that gay men and lesbians can change and become heterosexual. Several speakers at the gathering protested a Globe article on April 18, which reported that the organization's heterosexual claim was "staggering to psychiatrists and psychologists and . . . both amusing and enraging to gay people."
  • "GROUP PROTESTS GLOBE STORY; [FIRST Edition]" Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: May 14, 1982. pg. 1

• Earlier in April, Aesthetic Realism, by invitation only, premiered a film, "Yes, We Have Changed." It sanctifies Siegel and presents a series of persons (all but two male) telling how they changed. Rothenberg said that "the common denominator seems to be aversion to their own homosexuality. There's nothing sadder than self- hatred. It's like all those black publications that, years ago, ran ads for straightened hair and light skin. You don't have to practice homosexuality, but not practicing it doesn't change your instincts." Though Aesthetic Realism gives seminars and "dramatic presentations" on a variety of topics - acting, anthropology, art, business, drugs, ethics, family, insanity, marriage, music, photography, religion - the main emphasis appears to be changing homosexuals into heterosexuals. In a booklet published in 1978, Kranz, purportedly the first to change, reported that Aesthetic Realism has converted 84 percent of the men who have come for assistance. Over a six-year period, Kranz said, "we have spoken with 297 men ranging in age from 14 to 60. Of the 297 men, 107 had seven consultations, which we see as the minimum number of hours necessary for us to begin to know a consultee with some depth, and for him to begin to understand some of the basic principles of Aesthetic Realism. Of these 107 men, 90 have said they have changed." No tally is given for lesbians.
  • "AESTHETIC REALISM' AND HOMOSEXUALITY" Kay Longcope Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Apr 18, 1982. pg. 1

• A gathering of Transformation Ex-Gay Ministries tomorrow in Falls Church will be small compared with the numbers involved in the American sexual revolution, but its topic is no less explosive. Former homosexuals will talk about how they were "healed" by counseling, behavior changes - and religious awakening. The group, one of about 200 such ministries in the nation, is the Washington chapter of Exodus International, the largest umbrella group in the movement. [...] The secular school of therapy is called "Aesthetic Realism," which holds that homosexuality arises from a learned fear or hate of the opposite sex. But it is the religious approach that is growing.
  • "Movement puts major focus on changing homosexuals Professionals reject claims of `healing'" Larry Witham. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Feb 3, 1995. pg. A.2

• The Aesthetic Realism Foundation was founded by poet Eli Siegel in 1941 to educate the public about his philosophy, which includes such radical ideas as that “all beauty is a making one of opposites” and that humankind’s “largest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.” Today, the organization promotes his philosophy through dramatic presentations and classes on art, poetry, music, and marriage. The foundation also offers “consultations”—a kind of personal therapy in which students are individually counseled by a group of Aesthetic Realism teachers. [...] Had Assemblyman Ortiz or his staff investigated the group, they might have discovered that from the 1960s through the '80s, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation ran a program intended to turn gay people straight, and claimed to have successfully "changed" 150 people. (The foundation ended that program in 1990, and today insists that "Aesthetic Realism is for full, equal civil rights for everyone.")
  • "Political Surrealism" Maria Luisa Tucker. The Village Voice. New York: May 7-May 13, 2008. Vol. 53, Iss. 19; pg. 11, 2 pgs

That 1995 source characterizes it as the secular school of the ex-gay movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Siegel and his followers believed that homosexuality was an illness “caused” by self-contempt. As early as the mid-’40s, some members claimed they had converted to heterosexuality through the foundation’s teachings. In 1971, in what could be viewed as a precursor to the current ex-gay movement, three counselors began specifically working with homosexual men, many of whom were married off to female members, most of whom were lesbians.

In the ’70s AR heavily promoted the myth that they could convert people from gay to straight. Members appeared on talk shows, and AR placed full-page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times that listed the names of those who had “changed.” New York’s Gay Activist Alliance responded by infiltrating [or “zapping”] their meetings at their Greene Street headquarters and passing out pro-gay literature with accurate information. In return, AR members claimed that they were victims being “persecuted” by GAA.

As late as 1986, AR published vehemently anti-gay tomes. Until the mid-1990s, AR members wore buttons that read “Victims of the Press.”

Feelings of persecution, intolerance of criticism, slavish devotion to a leader, a belief that only they know the one true path to enlightenment—these are distinguishing characteristics of a cult.

Many ex-members of the group, including those supposedly “converted” to heterosexuality, contribute horror stories to a web site put together by Michael Bluejay, who was a child member of the group and whose own grandmother was one of those who was allegedly “converted.” (The web site is michaelbluejay.com.)

“AR no longer gives counseling sessions to try to ‘cure’ homosexuality,” Bluejay told The Blade. “They still believe that homosexuality is a psychological deficit caused by one’s contempt for the world—they have to continue believing this, because Eli Siegel said so—but it's not a part of their curriculum any more. And they avoid talking about it as much as possible—to the point of even seeming to deny that they ever had such a thing as a gay cure.”

However, they remain privately homophobic. Their official position, as laid out in an e-mail from Friends of Aesthetic Realism (which runs a web site, Countering the Lies, to respond to criticism of the group) is: “Aesthetic Realism does not see homosexuality as a ‘sickness’ or something to ‘cure.’” On this same site AR executive director Margo Carpenter claims that “AR is for full, equal civil rights for everyone.” She labels claims that AR offers a cure for homosexuality as a “hoard of lies.”

• "Anti-Gay Cult Pulls Fast One: Aesthetic Realists wrest $4,000 in state funds for a program that allegedly teaches art to Brooklyn senior citizens. But the group has a history of “converting” gays to heterosexuals." By BILL SCHOELL Apr. 25, 2008 The New York Blade [1]

Most of these sources are irrelevant. Actually, if even one of the sources proved your point, you wouldn't need the others. Apparently some people do regard Aesthetic Realism as part of the ex-gay movement. That's not surprising, and does not mean that this is true. I note that the quote from the Washington Times is partial and selective. There certainly isn't enough in that partial quote to support any conclusion. Skoojal (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop removing the category. I've provided several reliable 3rd-party sources that show that the organization promoted itself as providing therapy to to change homosexuality. You've provided no sources to contradict them, only have said you think they're irrlevant and might be wrong. That's not appropriate and is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm baffled that anyone (besides an Aesthetic Realist, who is trying to hide the group's past) would say that AR was not an ex-gay organization. AR's work to change gays is *precisely* what we think of in an ex-gay group. The fact that they no longer work that angle isn't even close to relevant; their history is important. We don't remove certain references to Nazis just because they no longer operate concentration camps. MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an Aesthetic Realist. I find Aesthetic Realism, and everything to do with it, to be completely ridiculous. I have a completely different reason for removing the category: the fact that it does not appear to apply. The category itself is poorly defined, and there seem to be no clear rules about exactly what articles it does and does not apply to. That will have to be sorted out. Will Beback's comments above border on the threatening, and suggest a need for involvement by other editors. A request for comment may perhaps be appropriate. Skoojal (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Michaelbluejay's other points: As far as I'm aware, an ex-gay organization is an organization that's primarily concerned with converting homosexuals to heterosexuality. Aesthetic Realism does not appear to be such an organization, despite claims to the contrary. They appear to be mainly concerned with poetry and art, and have specifically denied that they are mostly interested in homosexuality. Your Nazi example is vague and irrelevant. Again, I suggest that there is a need for involvement by other editors who are less concerned with Aesthetic Realism than you appear to be. Skoojal (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've provided sources showing that the organization promoted itself as providing conversion therapy. You've provided zero sources to the contrary. Since this is sourced information, I'm going to restore the category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy organizations are not organizations that happen to have promoted conversion therapy at one time in the past - they're organizations primarily concerned with homosexuality in the here and now. Otherwise, any organization that promoted changing homosexuality to heterosexuality would qualify as one. That would include major psychoanalytic organizations, and very possibly major psychiatric organizations like the APA. Please consider the implications of your argument, because if applied more broadly, it might have consequences that you wouldn't appreciate. I'm concerned that a double standard of some kind is at work here - fringe groups like Aesthetic Realism can have this done to them, but major organizations for some reason cannot, even though the same argument should apply. Skoojal (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit nonplussed by your "recentism". Such an ahistorical viewpoint shouldn't govern classification in an encyclopedia. It would be quite silly to classify organizations only by their most recent incarnations, ignoring their previous ones. For much of its history, Aesthetic Realism concerned itself primarily with converting "homosexuals"; it's the only reason the public in general knew of the organization for much of its history. Now, admittedly, our article doesn't make this clear, because it's been astroturfed by AR adherents. The facts still remain: AR attained prominence in the early 1970s solely through their advertisements concerning their method of converting "homosexuals" to heterosexuality, and this remained their only claim to fame until they made some minor inroads in the late 80s among some gullible members of the educational community. And they still hold that Aesthetic Realism is the means by which gays become straight: they haven't given up that belief! They've only stopped advertising it. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, Skoojal, you're right, a subject's history is completely unimportant. You know, I just noticed that the entry for the Ramones has them categorized as a Punk Music Group, despite the fact that they broke up years ago! Whoever wrote that article obviously isn't paying attention to current events. I assume you'll remedy this situation by removing that category, since the Ramones are not only no longer a punk music group, they're not even any kind of band any more. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcastic comment above is foolish. Please try to make more constructive comments. Please also see WP:CAT, in particular the part that reads, "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc. Do not apply categories whose relationship to the topic is definable only as "(Article) is a subject related to (category)", such as filing a teacher directly into Category:Education, an album directly into Category:Music or a book about skydiving directly into Category:Parachuting. Similarly, categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article: a biographical article about a specific person, for example, does not belong in Category:Biography." And remember there's no good evidence Aesthetic Realism was ever mainly concerned with homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that a number of organizations curently categorized in the "Ex-gay" categories are primarily aligned to the goals of that movement. There is evidence that the main thrust of this movement was to change people from being homosexual. AR was a form of conversion therapy. That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't make it disappear. I've asked you time and again to propose a better solution, but until one is found Category:Conversion therapy is the best category for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no evidence "that a number of organizations curently categorized in the "Ex-gay" categories are primarily aligned to the goals of that movement", then my response is simple: they should not be categorized that way. The evidence you've provided about Aesthetic Realism being mainly concerned with homosexuality is completely unsatisfactory and contradicted by Aesthetic Realism itself. Skoojal (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what is stated in the article itself: "That is because we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind." "This matter" is homosexuality. Thus, it's clear that Aesthetic Realism has contradicted your understanding of what it is. Note, by the way, that the article itself doesn't say that Aesthetic Realism was strictly speaking "therapy" of any kind, or even use the word "therapy." In the past, you have argued about this with reference to the definition of Conversion therapy from the article on that subject. Well, that definition appears to have been wrong, and I changed it. See the conversion therapy talk page for a long and detailed post on that subject. Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that AR now tries to erase its former promotions in this regard. It is not true that they never offered the study of AR as a therapy that would result in change. And that is not what your quotation says. We have now six sources that call what they did "therapy". As for your edits to Conversion therapy, didn't you earlier accuse me of unilaterally making changes in order to score points in a content dispute? It's hard not to think that those words apply better to your own actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Will, AR was a philosophical movement that had some of its principles adapted for conversion therapy. saying that AR is the same thing as conversion therapy is an awful lot like saying that Christianity is the same thing as Alcoholics Anonymous. perspective, please. --Ludwigs2 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AR conducts therapy. They are a therapy-providing organization. They still offer sessions so far as I know. They claim the therapy can resolve a variety of conditions, inclusing eating disorders and racism. In the past one of the things they said it cured was homosexuality. This isn't like your Christianity/AA example, this is like categorizing a psychiatric hospital as a mental health care provider. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does not even use the word "therapy", so how can you claim this? Conversion therapy is by definition therapy, not any technique aimed at changing sexual orientation, as the Conversion therapy article has wrongly stated in the past. Skoojal (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the early eighties a young man at Yeshiva University, troubled by his homosexual desires, came out to a religious studies teacher and was sent to Aesthetic Realism, the once popular philosophic cult of Eli Siegel, who had a theory for healing homosexuals. The therapy enforced his self-blame and made his situation worse. Six months later the young man attempted suicide and was sent home by the university, never to return.
  • Steven Greenberg (2005). Wrestling with God and men. United States: U of Wisconsin Pr. p. 293. ISBN 0-299-19094-3.
• This shows that the AR was seen as a place to send homosexual to be changed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One source claiming that something was therapy doesn't show that that is what it was. There's nothing in the article itself saying that Aesthetic Realism claimed to be a therapy. Skoojal (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We already have two sources on this page that call it therapy. That's sufficient. There are no sources that contradict them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is most definitely not sufficient. An article has to be based on sources present in the article, not on material placed on a talk page. If your argument for placing the article in the Conversion therapy category depends upon Aesthetic Realism being a form of therapy, then it's simply extraordinary that the article does not even use the word "therapy." Skoojal (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here's another: Aesthetic Realism gets a whole chapter in Handbook of Innovative Psychotherapies By Raymond J. Corsini Wiley, 1981.
• And another, citing the above:
  • Depending on his or her background in the field of human relations, any of the following psychotherapy models may be drawn upon: client directed, psychoanalytic, Adlerian, Jungian, problem solving, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic-existential, Gestalt, rational emotive, transactional, aesthetic realism, direct decision therapy, interpersonal process recall, or intensive journal therapy (sec Corsini, 1984: 223-).
    • Denzin, Norman K. The Alcoholic Society By Norman K. Denzin, John M. Johnson [2]
• There are two more that call it therapy. And none that say it isn't therapy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's a third, a later book by Corsini again:
    • AESTHETIC REALISM The most unusual part of the aesthetic realism system is probably the use of a troika-type of counselor therapy.
      • Encyclopedia of Psychology by Raymond J. Corsini - Psychology - 1994 - 2408 pages ISBN 9780471558194
  • I think that brings the total to five sources that call it "therapy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Make that six - I added text describing it as a kind of personal therapy from a source already listed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, if these sources are valid then they're valid on a talk page. Based on the fresh sources that I've found I'd say there are a number of changes that should be made to this article. Aside from the conversion therapy the group's other claim to fame is protesting newspapers for ignoring them. For whatever reason, they were largely ignored. Most articles about them mentions both. Anyway, once this category dispute is settled then we can turn our attention to other improvements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the focus on conversion therapy, I have access to an archive of Los Angeles Times that goes back to the 19th century. There are only four appearances of AR in the Times, and three of those deal with conversion therapy. One is a profile of a prominent actor who received the consultations and was asked about the topic. The other two are advertisements placed by AR in 1971 and 1979, that directly promote AR as a way to change. Remember that the groups was based almost exclusively in a small section of New York City, so the fact that they advertised in a distant city is itself significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Will - first, would you clean up your posts a bit? it's really hard to follow the threads you make.

second - the first quote you give says the man was sent to "Aesthetic Realism, the once popular philosophic cult of Eli Siegel". the article text itself starts out by saying that it is a "philosophy of aesthetics". AR goes well beyond conversion therapy (which you can easily tell, because you could remove the practice of conversion therapy from AR without changing the philosophy at all). what are you trying to accomplish by adding AR to this category? it makes no sense to me, and I can't understand the aggressiveness with which you are pursuing this end. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I suppose the best thing would be to move the sources into a separate section. As mentioned above, this is fresh research and it brings to light details and emphasis that are missing from the article.

Second, one could remove salad dressing from the "Newman's Own" company, and it would still be the same company. But it is salad dressing which made the company a success. And if they did so I'd say we should still categorize it as a salad-dressing maker because that is what it's most obviously associated with. The purpose of this category is the same as any category, to assist readers looking for information on a topic. If someone wanted to know what organizations have been involved in conversion therapy then they should be able to find this article.

Third, I am not being aggressive. I am seeking to maintain a status quo in response to editors who don't seem to know much about the topic and may be here promoting outside agendas. So far no one has provided a single source contradicting the numerous sources here that show AR promoted itself as providing therapy for converting homosexuals. Given the overwhelming citations to the contrary, let me ask you why you are so intent on removing this appropriate category from this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

you might also use the {{quotation}} and {{blockquote}} templates, which do wonders to separate quoted material from non-quoted.

I'm worried, Will, that you are making (no pun intended) a massive category error, here. of course you've given references that show that AR was used in conversion therapy, but you've shown nothing that suggests AR was intended originally and primarily to convert gays to straights (and indeed, a quick read of the article suggests that was not the case). I mean, you can use 'Newman's Own' salad dressing as a tanning lotion if you are so inclined (and I may suggest that to my girlfriend - ), but that does not mean that 'Newman's Own' should end up in 'category:tanning lotions'.

frankly, I sense an agenda - information agendas are almost always a matter of creating new and unusual category relationships - and I'm not sure quite what to make of it. are you trying to broaden or de-christianize the ex-gay thing, or are you after something else? --Ludwigs2 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What agenda do you sense? The only agenda that I have is to maintain a proper category on this article. I don't care if it's "ex-gay organizations", "conversion therapy", or "change from homosexuality". A category doens't have to be limited to only the most primary characteristics. Turkey is primarily an Asian country, but it is also a European country and so we add both categories. John Goodman was originally from St. Louis County, but now he's in New Orleans so we use both categories. AR used to primarily advertise themselves as a way of changing from homosexuality, and that is how they were often depicted. The purported refusal of newspapers to print that information led to another claim to notability, their longterm protests of NY Times and other media. It was indeed a central part of theo organization. While they've stopped advertising, there's no evidence that they've stoppped performing the therapy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN - you are talking about AR as though it were a person or group. AR is a philosophy that has little or nothing to do with homosexuality. what persons or groups advocated using AR for conversion therapy? they are the ones that should be categorized, not AR.

To reply to the point about Turkey: you are factually wrong about how it is categorized. It is categorized as part of 'Eurasia'. It doesn't have either the Europe or the Asia categories. So, try thinking of a better argument. Skoojal (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AR is a group and a philosophy. While technically the group is the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, there's no point in having separate articles on the two aspects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I wrote? You were trying to make a point about Aesthetic Realism by referring to Turkey, apparently claiming that it was categorized both as part of Europe and as part of Asia. It's not. It's categorized as Eurasia, which is a different category altogether. Skoojal (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment about AR being not being a group. I suppose it was unsigned by another editor. There are countless examples of articles that are in categories covering relatively unimportant aspects. If a person attends three schools they may be listed as alumni of all of them. We don't decide which degree is primary or exclusive, as some are suggesting here. We apply all relevant categories. The change therapy provided by this group is a key part of their notability. It should be included in some category that covers that aspect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are using your own definition of 'Change therapy' (I suppose you mean the same thing as Conversion therapy). It doesn't mean therapy that tries to 'cure' a whole range of social issues, including incidentally homosexuality among many other things. It means specifically therapy that tries to change sexual orientation, to cure homosexuality. So the 'Conversion therapy' category does not apply here, even if one were to grant that Aesthetic Realism was 'therapy' (which I do not grant, as the article on Aesthetic Realism does not even mention therapy - it talks about philosophy and art. If you think your sources are good enough to show that Aesthetic Realism is therapy then you must, if you are arguing in good faith, place them in the article and rewrite it accordingly). Skoojal (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you have no source for the goals of the ex-gay movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is that question a relevant response to my comments above? Please get someone else to take an interest in this dispute, because this argument has become lost in its own coils. Skoojal (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't support your arguments with sources then please stop making them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Same to you. Like I said, get someone else interesed in this issue. Skoojal (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a source that calls the AR a secular part of the ex-gay therapy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If theres no source to the contrary, I'll restore the ex-gay organizations category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• When the term "ex-gay" was introduced to professional literature in 1980, Dr. E. Mansell Pattison defined it as someone who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality."
  • Throckmorton, Warren (June 2002). "Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33 (3). American Psychological Association: 242–248. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.242. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthur= ignored (help)

There's a source defining the meaning of "ex-gay". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not good enough. If you are serious about this, you can't simply mention a source on a talk page and declare that it settles the issue. If you think that the source is so good, then put it in the article. Otherwise, I find it difficult to accept that you are making a good faith effort to improve the article. As for 'the ex-gay therapy', what are you talking about? Even the language you're using shows confusion - the ex-gay movement and Conversion therapy overlap, but they're not the same thing. Sort out properly what you're saying. Your source defines the meaning of ex-gay, not ex-gay organization, so it's irrelevant. Skoojal (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I take it that your only remaining opposition to this category is that the supporting sources aren't actually in the article at the moment? That seems a bit lawyer-ish, but if that will settle the dispute I'll add them. Will it settle the dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the source above is a definition of "ex-gay", one which doens't mention the promotion of Christianity or right wing politics, which you had asserted were part of the movement's goals. It shows that a group doesn't need to have those characteristics to fit the definition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding sources to the article would be the absolute minimum that you would have to do to support your view. I still think it would probably be unacceptable even if you did add the sources, but that may depend on exactly what changes you make. In regard to the definition of Ex-gay not mentioning Christianity, I've stated repeatedly that this is not my main point. Skoojal (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Article Removed"

This article has been removed because of a request from the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. Their statement is reproduced below.

STATEMENT

Aesthetic Realism is about how a person sees the whole world--not about homosexuality. The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel is education in the largest sense possible--more comprehensive than has ever been before. It is a true description of the world.

As is well known, there is now intense anger on the subject of homosexuality and how it is seen. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation does not want to be involved in this atmosphere of anger. Therefore, the Foundation has discontinued its public presentation of the fact that through Aesthetic Realism people have changed from homosexuality. And consultations to change from homosexuality are not being given. We do not want this matter, which is not central to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism, in its largeness and beauty, truly is.

http://www.freedomsring.org/66feature.html

• Here is the original contents (excerpted to comply with copyright)

Help Is Available for Homosexuals

Having received help in her struggle with homosexuality, a Christian woman wrote me, "I know Aesthetic Realism is not a religious organization but, in a way, that's what made it so encouraging to me. They didn't say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. But they gave really good explanations as to WHY it is wrong. Regardless of religion or AIDS or society's view, homosexuality is just not a real way to find happiness."

Another thing that impresses me about Rachel's attitude is that she does not seek to justify homosexual practices. She wrote, "Just this week, I received a newsletter from a (name) church I used to attend. They're having a study on homosexuality where they're going to look at the passages that deal with this topic in the Bible. I got the impression from the wording that it is to try to make the Bible say homosexuality is OK. I appreciate that those people don't want to condemn, but I believe that people think it is such an unconquerable feeling that God certainly wouldn't condemn it. For a study like that, I believe you have to know beyond the Bible what is wrong with homosexuality. Aesthetic Realism taught me that, and I am very grateful."

It is unlikely that many homosexual persons will be reading this, but some of you may wish to pass this information on to others who may be eager for help. Some may not want help, but for any who may yearn for change, these addresses taken from literature of the two groups are supplied.

Aesthetic Realism Foundation, 141 Greene Street, New York, NY 10012; (212)-777-4490. This is not a religious organization. Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services, P.O. Box 7881, Reading, PA 19603; (610)-376-1146. This group has chapters in various states. They can also point you to many helpful books. ~Cecil Hook (March 2001) []

http://web.archive.org/web/20010703010150/http://freedomsring.org/66feature.html

• This is evidence that they used to hold different views than they do now, and that they've made an effort to erase materials that discuss its previous views. While they're welcome to do as they please, an encyclopdic reference shouldn't toss things down the memory hole just because a group feels a former viewpoint is no longer politically correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Will, the don't hold different views now than they used to. They still believe that homosexuality is a mental problem caused by one's contempt for the world, etc., they just no longer talk about it because of the flak they got for it, and because they're embarrassed that so many (most?) of their converts soon fell off the wagon and decided they were really gay after all. Notice that AR never said its attempts to change gays was wrong, and they've certainly never apologized for it. That's because they still believe it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link to "AR is a Cult website"

Our favorite new editor just removed the link to the AR is a Cult site, saying it violates the WP rule about linking to blogs. First, it's glaringly obvious that the site is not a "blog", in just about any sense of the term. It scarcely even meets the definition of a [Personal web page], and that article even notes that "Defining personal web page is difficult". Finally, the WP policy specifically exempts sites that are authoritative. And the site in question is plainly authoritative. It contains the voices of sixteen former members, important evidence such as scans of an ad the AR people took out in major newspapers, direct quotes of actual AR books, and full reprints of articles from the mainstream media (with permission). You'll also note that the mainstream media cited both the site's contributors and the site itself. You want to claim that the site is not authoritative? Fine, let's have that discussion. I'm eager to hear what your criteria must be. And by the way, I haven't restored the deleted site in question so that no one can claim that I'm doing self-promotion; I'll leave that to some other editor. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a self-published website. It's irrelevant whether it's called a blog or not. Statements that a self-published website is "authoritative" would naturally be more convincing coming from someone other than the person who created the website. Skoojal (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) You originally removed the site on the basis of it being (you said) a blog. That was the term you used, and the reason you gave. Now you say it's irrelevant whether it's a blog. So:

- (a) Will you please make up your mind about what your criteria is? and

- (b) If you're going to keep changing your positions, how is anyone supposed to take your arguments seriously?

(2) Of course it's a self-published website. You noticed? Show me where there's any policy against citing self-published websites.

(3) About your claim that a site's authoritativeness would be more convincing coming from someone other than the site's author,

- (a) How about the other media outlets who have cited either the site's writers or the site itself?

- (b) How about arguing the issues rather than launching an ad hominem dismissal? I provided several credible reasons why the site is authoritative. You didn't argue against any of these at all. And you've provided zero (I repeat zero) reasons why the site should not be considered authoritative.

The only question here is whether the site is authoritative, and you never addressed that. All you did was discount the arguments out of hand because I was the one who made them. Keep that up, and I'll start dismissing yours for the same reason. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As you probably know, 'blog' is a term that's commonly used to describe any self-published website. There is no absolute policy against citing self-published websites - it's just not allowed in most cases. See the policy here [3], including the words 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I do not believe that your website meets this standard. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL is the governing guideline, not WP:V. External links are not sources, and are held to a lower standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The website I removed does not meet that standard. 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority' are included in links normally to be avoided. And in fact, the web page in question was been used as a source; WP:V does apply to that. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"As you probably know, 'blog' is a term that's commonly used to describe any self-published website" No, not in my experience. And anyone using the term "blog" to describe something that is not a blog is using that term wrong -- as you did.

"I do not believe that your website meets this standard. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise." Yeah, I did, You haven't countered that at all (unless you count the fact that you dismissed my post out of hand because I was the one who made it).

Will, if you believe that the site that Skoojal removed is actually appropriate, then I hope you'll add it back. MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am inclined to dismiss your judgments about your website meeting the standard because you are making them. Such judgments should always be made by someone else - and preferrably by someone who is not so concerned with the article as Will Beback seems to be. You might want to try asking an administrator who hasn't taken a prior interest in this article. Skoojal (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask why you have such bizarre criteria (that we need an editor who hasn't edited the article before), but I can see it's pointless. I give up. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy category inappropriate

Labelling something as 'Conversion therapy' sends a clear message - that its only, or at least primary, purpose is changing homosexuality to heterosexuality through therapy. It's possible that Aesthetic Realism was mainly known for trying to change homosexuals to heterosexuality; that doesn't mean that was ever in fact its only or primary purpose. Nor do a few sources that define Aesthetic Realism as therapy show that it is in fact therapy rather than, as it seems to insist, a philosophy. So the Conversion therapy category is wrong. As Will Beback has urged me to assume good faith, I'd like to urge him to do the same thing. I've explained what my views are on Aesthetic Realism; they are unequivocally negative. Skoojal (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Will Beback's comments on categories above ('Second, one could remove salad dressing from the "Newman's Own" company, and it would still be the same company. But it is salad dressing which made the company a success. And if they did so I'd say we should still categorize it as a salad-dressing maker because that is what it's most obviously associated with. The purpose of this category is the same as any category, to assist readers looking for information on a topic. If someone wanted to know what organizations have been involved in conversion therapy then they should be able to find this article.'): they appear to be a personal interpretation of categories that are contradicted by the guideline, WP:CAT, which says, "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc. Do not apply categories whose relationship to the topic is definable only as "(Article) is a subject related to (category)", such as filing a teacher directly into Category:Education, an album directly into Category:Music or a book about skydiving directly into Category:Parachuting.'

Will Beback is applying the category in exactly the way the guideline says not to. He is just not on strong ground here. The basic mistake is in thinking that something qualifies as "Conversion therapy" if it is used among other things to change homosexuality to heterosexuality. Conversion therapy means therapies that only change sexual orientation, so it's absolutely clear that Beback is wrong (and this holds even if one were to grant the description of Aesthetic Realism as "therapy"). Skoojal (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is the third time you've quoted the same text. I again ask which category would properly cover the homosexual change therapy for which this group is noted. We've established that it was a main focus, and that it was therapy. I'm open to any solution reflects that sourced information.

The simplest solution, and the one that we had until Skoojal decided to delete it, was Category:Ex-gay organizations. Skoojal has never explained why he deleted that category this topic appears to fit the criteria: an organization aligned with the goals of the ex-gay movement. The goal of the ex-gay movement is to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals, is it not? If so, the category applies ot his article. If not, please give a detailed, sourced explanation of which goals of the ex-gay movement AR has not been aligned with. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that any such category should be used. It's not relevant what the 'main focus' of Aesthetic Realism was or wasn't - something only counts as Conversion therapy if it is therapy whose purpose is to change sexual orientation and nothing else. As for goals of the Ex-gay movement that Aesthetic Realism has not been aligend with these include, obviously, promoting Christianity, and a specific right-wing political agenda. Skoojal (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

that's a misinterpretation of categorization. Turkey is a country in two continents, but we don't use only one category for the continent which it primarily occupies. Instead we use all relevant categories to properly characterize it. As for the goals of the ex-gay movement being promoting Christianity and a right-wing agenda, please provide a source for that. I see there is a Jewish group; in that category, so if that is the standard it'll have to go, along with any other group that doesn't actively promote Christianity and a right-wing agenda according to reliable sources. In other words, more than half of the category. Where should those article be categorized? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the definition of Conversion therapy - does it include therapies (or philosophies) that happen to involve changing sexual orientation among sundry other objectives, or does it only include therapies that are only about changing sexual orientation? Clearly, it's the latter. Your comment above is therefore irrelevant, and doesn't answer my point. Skoojal (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as ex-gay organizations go: one can argue that these don't have to be necessarily Christian, but they should have converting homosexuals to heterosexuality as their main goal. That's not the case with Aesthetic Realism. It would be a serious error to place it in that category. Skoojal (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism had converting homosexuals to heterosexuality as their main goal throughout much of its history. It would be a serious error not to place it in that category. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Try actually responding to my argument. Your comments are irrelevant (you didn't even explain what category you're talking about - ex-gay organizations or conversion therapy?) Skoojal (talk)

Try actually responding to the facts, instead of speaking without reference to - or in ignorance of - them. Categories are meant to inform a general readership, not to reflect one individual editor's idiosyncratic terminological definitions. In your peculiar cladistics of therapy, which category fits an organization that marshaled its efforts to "change" homosexuals overtly for most of its history, and clandestinely for the rest? - Outerlimits (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments above are irrelevant. I see little reason to respond to comments that don't adress my arguments. Skoojal (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. this all strikes me as one big wp:WEASEL WORD issue. Aesthetic Realism was not designed for the express purpose of converting gays to straights. there apparently were people who picked up and used Aesthetic Realism for that purpose, but as far as I can tell no one is bothering to spell out who those people were, what their relationship to AR or to the founders of AR was, or what they though AR was about. I am not about to support this claim, any more that I would say phenomenology is defined by its use by the Third Reich, or that that the Christian moral ethic is defined by its use by Alcoholics Anonymous, or that the Ancient Greek concept of areté was defined by the fact that the Greeks thought homosexuality was an important part of its development. let's differentiate, please, between philosophies and the uses they are put to. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You're simply wrong on your history. It was AR and its founder who asserted that AR was a "remedy" for homosexuality, and it was AR itself that advertised that fact in ads placed in major newspapers. AR hasn't been adopted by anyone outside of its small cult of followers; no one has "picked up" AR or used it for any purpose other than that advocated by AR leaders. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

possibly - I'm no expert on AR. but I am pretty knowledgeable on philosophy, and what I read here is awfully deep for simple gay to straight conversion. note that its basic principles (as listed on the talk) have little to do with sexuality, and read rather like a general guide to enlightened living, and there is nothing in the description of the philosophy that talks about homosexuality. if all they were interested in doing was converting gays, there are far simpler ways of doing it than trying to convince them to live in intellectual non-dualism. maybe what we need to do (before we worry about categorizing this article) is to flesh out this article to show that (in fact) converting gays was the primary motivation.--Ludwigs2 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article would certainly be improved if AR's role as "gay therapy" were made more prominent (as it once was, but AR adherents have managed to obfuscate their history here through dogged persistence). I don't see how your requirement for simplicity applies: after all, why should something as illogical as "therapy" to change one thing into another be expected to be simple? If simplicity is the criterion, doing "nothing" would be simpler than anything else we can imagine, and as the data shows, every bit as efficacious. I'm not sure "Christianity" or "castration" are particularly "simple", and they too, like AR, have been advocated as "cures" for homosexuality - but of the three, only AR made such conversions their primary activity for years. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, but would you recommend we add christianity and castration to this category? see my point? --Ludwigs2 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly advocate adding that category to any group which had advocated and offered Christianity or castration as a remedy for homosexuality! See mine? - Outerlimits (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

yes. I see a distinction between AR the philosophy and the group(s) that offer AR as conversion therapy; you don't. I don't know which position is correct, but in the absence of any clear evidence that AR intrinsically, primarily, and as a whole advocates conversion therapy, it should be left separate from the category the same way that Christianity and castration are. --Ludwigs2 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a distinction without a difference: no one outside the AR cult seriously advocates AR as philosophy. In any case, this article is about both AR the philosophy and AR the organization, so any tag that would apply to one of those applies to this article. AR the group didn't do any thing that Siegel didn't approve (before his suicide), and there's no reason to believe that promoting itself as therapy for homosexuality was an exception. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where yo are getting the requirement that things can only be categorized is they were designed for the epxress purpose expressed in that category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

that's the nature of categorization. categories lump together things that have some primary common characteristic. Bluebirds are naturally categorized as birds, but less likely to be categorized as 'things that are blue' because their 'blueness' is less central to them than their 'birdness'. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We categorize Woody Allen as a standup comedian, a short story writer, an actor and a director. He was a standup comedian first and he is a film director foremost. But we still use all of those categories because they are all important aspects of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

However, we don't normally categorize him in the categories 'people with glasses', 'famous short people', or 'self-deprecating jews', even those are all perfectly accurate descriptions. we don't use the first two categories because they are not particularly central to Allen's work, and we don't use the last two categories because there are people in the world who would take offense at them. Homosexuality is a sensitive topic, and categorizing people or groups as having a relationship to homosexuality should not be done unless it is unambiguous and clear that that relationship exists. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the number of sources, I'd say that the relation of this group to changing homosexuality is clear and unambiguous. One of the sources says that this appears to be the main focus of the group. It is the topic about which the group took out advertisements in distant cities, which they didn't do for any other topic. This is the topic that AR members went on national TV shows to discuss. This is the topic that caused the group to almost continuously picket outside the offices of the New York Times, and even occasionally outside the homes of editors, plus similar protests at other newspapers and magazines that "refused" to report on their success in changing people from homosexuality. Can you explain what you find unclear or ambiguous? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

that is certainly worth discussing. however, based on what I read in the article at present, there's no indication that was a primary goal of AR. I mean, if we start categorizing this way, then should we go on to say that San Francisco is a city that promotes homosexuality? or that Dow Chemicals (as a defense contractor) advocates for large scale death and destruction? SF is a mecca for gays, yes, and Dow produces some stuff that will literally fry the skin off your bones, but it would be unfair to say that either promotes those things. this is what I mean when I say you're making a category error - you are failing to distinguish between the thing, and the uses people put the thing to. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A frying pan can be used as a murder weapon, but that is not how they are sold. On the other hand, AR was sold as a way of changing from homosexuality. That is the way it was most prominently promoted, as you can see from the sources provided on this page. Is there still disagreement on that point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Frying pans have been used countless times in the media as instruments of domestic violence and self defense. they are not 'sold' that way because murder is illegal, but they are commonly recognized as a household weapon. the fact that AR was prominently 'sold' as a form of conversion has more to do with the fact that homosexuality is a contentious issue, and cults love to use contentious issues as trolling grounds. Siegel himself never promoted its use that way, and (from the text) conversion was always presented as a side-effect of AR, not as its primary goal (note for instance that many adherents did not convert or did not stay converted, but it does not seem to have affected their belief in AR). --Ludwigs2 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I think we agree that the AR was promoted as a way to change. It appears that the disagreement here is over the simple issue of whether a group can be included in a category that is not their primary goal. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

that's it, yes. And frankly, I wouldn't normally worry about it, except that the category itself is a bit loaded (like any category that deals with 'hot-button'). I'd just like to make extra sure that AR would self-categorize this way, to be sure it's not a biased view delivered by detractors. --Ludwigs2 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The category is under discussion on its talk page and may change to the broader "Changing sexuality". As for this group, we have sources that say the "the main emphasis appears to be changing homosexuals into heterosexuals", that "250 persons rallied on Boston Common yesterday to demand that The Boston Globe "print the truth about Aesthetic Realism," a New York-based educational foundation that claims that gay men and lesbians can change and become heterosexual", and that "from the 1960s through the '80s, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation ran a program intended to turn gay people straight, and claimed to have successfully "changed" 150 people". that last one indicates that the specially started a program for changing sexuality. So it appears that they have created programs primarily to deal with homosexuality. As for your last point, that's a tricky one. The group has not only dropped its advertisements of the therapy but have made a concerted effort to erase evidence that they offered it in the past. Do you think that an objective encyclopedia shold allow people or groups to pretend that the past never happened? Do you support the use of he memory hole? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think an 'objective encyclopedia' should not be relying on categories to make points. if AR is currently and systematically trying to overshadow it's relationship to conversion therapy, that only bolsters my belief that they should not be categorized as such (any more than - again - the catholic church should be categorized in 'organizations that use torture', despite their history with the inquisition). this isn't the memory hole - I have no problem with conversion therapy being discussed in the article as part of AR's history - but clearly they do not want to be categorized that way, and we should not force it down their throats. Now, if the title of the category were something like 'Techniques for changing sexuality' that would be different, since AR clearly was a technique offered for that purpose, and that title removes the insinuation that AR is entirely about CT. but that would be such a short list of techniques that I doubt it would make a particularly useful category. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, thank you for your comments. I think how a subject prefers to be described is pretty much irrelevant. Our responsibility is to describe things accurately, which is not necessarily how the subjects want to be described. I remember seeing the FAQ on a racist website that went something like this (paraphrased): "(Q) Are you racist? (A) No! We simply believe that all races should be carefully segregated for purposes of racial purity. But we're not racist or anything." AR is very similar. Despite actively trying to help gays become straight for over two decades, AR now writes on one if its websites, "AR never saw homosexuality as something to cure." That's just inaccurate. In short, I think our allegiance has to be to the facts, not to what AR might want. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

convenience break

The fundamental issue is the definition of Conversion therapy. It is it therapy aimed simply at converting homosexuals to heterosexuality, or is it therapy (or philosophy) with multiple objectives (including eradicating homosexuality, along with ending poverty, war, racism, and whatever). In my view, it's the former. There is no basis for the latter interpretation. The issue is not about the definition of categories themselves, as Will Beback has claimed. Skoojal (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You've never answered my request for a source for your definition of the ex-gay movement's goals. It was the deletion of this article from "ex-gay organizations" which precipitated this dispute. This group promoted itself as providing therapy to change people from homosexuality. At the time, 1970-1990, they did not promote themselves to the same degree for any other purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What sources do you suppose exist that contradict my view of what an ex-gay organization is? Find them, if you think they're there. Regarding Conversion therapy: that "this group promoted itself as providing therapy to change people from homosexuality", does not meet the definition of Conversion therapy. See the article and its sources. Skoojal (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. You've made an assertion and have made edits based on that assertion. Please provide sources which say that the goals of the ex-gay movement include "promoting Christianity and a specific right-wing political agenda". Without a source it appears to be your own opinion. If the goals of the ex-gay movement are limited to changing people from homosexuality then this article belongs in that category and shouldn't have been removed. So please provide your sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My unsourced assertions are as good as anyone else's unsourced assertions, including yours. There shouldn't be an assumption that, if I don't offer a source, you must be right, even if you don't have a source either. The argument you mention above is not my main argument; I've offered others. In any case, as this argument is becoming increasingly unproductive, I suggest that you invite other editors to take an interest in this dispute, or perhaps place a request for comment. Skoojal (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've provided sources that show this groups promoted itself as providing change from homosexuality. You've provided none to contradict that. You've asserted that this groups doesn't align with the goals of the ex-gay movment, but you can't provide a source for what those goals are. We already have sources that say the goal of the ex-gay movement is to change homosexuals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided no sources to contradict the claim that Aesthetic Realism 'promoted itself as providing change from homosexuality' because I don't have to. I'm not interested in disputing that, as my arguments don't depend on this point. You've provided no sources to show that any group that has ever tried to change homosexuality counts as an 'ex-gay organization.' I repeat my suggestion to ask other editors to address this issue, because this dispute is becoming increasingly repetitive, tedious and unproductive. Fresh perspectives would help. Skoojal (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The goals of the ex-gay movement appear to be to change homosexuality. If so, then this article belongs in that category. Do you have a source for their being other goals? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

'Appear' is not a source. Your comments are not relevant to the argument I've been making. Skoojal (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The suggested guideline at WP:CAT is: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?". I think this quite clearly meets that test. I think another functional question we can consider is, "Would a reader looking for articles on Conversion therapy be interested in Aesthetic Realism?" I'd have to say yes, they would.--Trystan (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The first part of that asks a question which is only one of many questions that have to be asked; it does not decide the issue. The second part is clearly wrong. Conversion therapy is a well known, controversial subject likely to attract widespread interest; Aesthetic Realism is a tiny fringe group very few people care about. Plenty of people would be interested in the former but not the latter. Skoojal (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the size of the group determines whether or not it fits into a category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it did; please respond to my actual arguments. Skoojal (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your actual argument? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main argument is that an ex-gay organization is an organization that is mainly concerned with converting homosexuals to heterosexuality (and/or, an organization that defines itself as an ex-gay organization). Aesthetic Realism isn't either of those things. Skoojal (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This thread concerns the "conversion therapy" category, not the "ex-gay organizations" category. Do you have any argument relevant to this thread? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Like any other thread, this is about whatever is being discussed here. I've repeated my points about why 'Conversion therapy' is wrong a number of times: the article defines Aesthetic Realism as a philosophy, not as a therapy, and it doesn't say that homosexuality was its specific concern. If you wanted to add the Conversion category, you'd have to rewrite the article. Currently it reads, 'Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.' That might have to be changed to something like, 'Aesthetic Realism is the therapy to cure homosexuality created by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.' Skoojal (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. That is not the standard for categorization. For example, American Family Association does not say onything like that, yet it is in Category:Ex-gay organizations. You're making up rules that aren't used elsewhere on Wikipedia. We've already provided ample sources to show that this organiztion is inovled in change from homosexuality. If there's no objection I'll add them =to the article and re-write it based on them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing the American Family Association article to my attention. I have just removed the ex-gay organization category from it, since there appears to be nothing in the article that justifies this (being opposed to homosexuality, or thinking it can be changed, isn't enough to make an organization an ex-gay organization). Your view that an ex-gay organization is anything that is 'inovled [sic] in change from homosexuality' is unsupported. I emphatically do object to your readding the ex-gay organization category to this article. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Will, you have my support for categorizing AR as Conversion therapy. Skoojal's criteria is nothing short of bizarre. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles aren't placed in categories because two editors agree they should be. Michaelbluejay's comment about my 'bizarre' criteria is just an insult from someone who's run out of arguments. Skoojal (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does work by consensus. You didn't like "ex-gay organizations", so this category was created. Then you nominated it for deletion, but that didn't find sufficient support. Now you want to to delete this category as well. It's beginning to look like you're on a mission rather than trying to find a solution. Unless you can propose a better category, I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does work by consensus. There does not appear to be a consensus for the Conversion therapy category. Nor do there appear to be any rules about how the Conversion therapy category is used or what articles it applies to. You may want to help fix that, or discuss it on the Conversion therapy category talk page. Skoojal (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, I think you have to find some support for your positions. You can just march in here and dictate that your way is the only way, dismissing everyone else out of hand. You don't think AR should be classed as Conversion Therapy despite other editors who think it should? Fine, then rally some support for your position. As long as it's just you saying it, then considering the nature of your discourse, I'm not taking your objection very seriously. (And if you want to claim that this entry means I'm desperate and have "run out of arguments", then great, have a ball.) MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. You said "Articles aren't placed in categories because two editors agree they should be." Okay, how about three editors? (I see that you just Undid Outerlimits' edit to re-add conversion therapy.) Maybe you can explain how your lone, solitary position on this trumps what three other editors think? In any event, at what magic number does consensus occur, according to Skoojal? I can just see you saying, "Articles aren't placed in categories just because 25 people who constitute 95% of the active editors say they should be." MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting about Ludwigs2. Take a look at his comments - he seems to agree with me. Actually, there are two editors who think the category does not apply verus three who think it does, so you're ahead, but only just. I may place a request for comment, although I think the best way to resolve this dispute would be to establish some rules about what the Conversion therapy category means and which articles it does and does not apply to. Skoojal (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. AR is most certainly an "ex-gay" group in exactly the same way as Christianity-based "ex-gay" groups: they all maintain that through the study of a given philosophy, homosexuality will change. In AR's case, they maintain that homosexuality will change as a result of having less contempt for the world, while the Christian groups say that homosexuality will change as a result of "accepting Jesus Christ as your savior," or some such thing. The fact that AR no longer attempts to change people from homosexuality does not mean that they no longer hold the view that homosexuality can change as a result of studying the AR philosophy. The fact that they are now trying to sweep this whole chapter of their history under the rug does not mean that they should be given a pass, simply because they say they should. One cannot divorce a thing from its history; that's like saying that Germany should not be mentioned in a discussion of Nazism because it is no longer a Nazi country. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a person who wishes to research "ex-gay" groups is ONLY interested in learning about groups that are currently offering "change" therapy. Indeed, such a person may well be researching the history of "ex-gay" groups. In that case, they should be able to find all the relevant information in one place. Is there a reason why AR (or this article) cannot be listed in more than one category? I see no such reason, other than some extremely anal nitpicking by somebody whose motives I suspect. Marinero (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Back Again

Back again after sixteen months! Just saw the comments made by Marinero below, which do seem rather sadly to have a fair amount of hard-edged invective in them as well as an unhealthy dose of sarcasm. People who live in glass houses, after all. Seems to me the danger with this whole Wiki article is the rather hardened antagonism on the part of some of the editors toward Aesthetic Realism for purposes which I don't really understand but which do seem overly personal to me and even alarmingly vengeful at times. It really is almost impossible to take their description of Aesthetic Realism as impartial and objective and therefore as accurate. My only response is that I try to judge a philosophy, idea, religion etc. on the merits themselves. Even the finest philosophies have had imperfect practitioners. I really don't care about somebody's personal life or how many times they have been married and all that kind of character assassination. It's the ideas themselves that rise or fall on their own merits and I have in my passing acquaintance with Aesthetic Realism found the philosophy itself quite sound and very worthwhile. I am quite sure there are many people who study Aesthetic Realism whose lives reflect quite well on it. I have met several. I am also quite sure there are imperfect people who study Aesthetic Realism just as there are imperfect people in churches and social service agencies and the ASPCA and the Red Cross and volunteering at soup kitchens and food pantries. But what is admirable about all those organizations is still admirable about them nevertheless. user: digital scribe 23:10 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.68.50 (talk)

You know, scribe, it really is most curious how you never engage me directly, preferring instead to leave little "reviews" of my posts. Just who is your intended audience? I assure you, anybody who chances upon this page is very unlikely to just read your little "review" and come to a conclusion about AR just from that. Anyway, I'll try to keep this brief, as the purpose of this page is not to debate the pros and cons of AR, and there has been far too much of that already here.

For the umpteenth millionth time, I will state that I have no particular quarrel with the PHILOSOPHY of AR. Read that sentence again; let it soak in. Absorb its meaning fully, once and for all. Got it now? Good; now you can stop repeating that falsehood. I do, however, believe that the philosophy has been misused by the AR organization (and Siegel himself, while he was alive), with the result that AR is nothing more and nothing less than a mind-control cult. I say this from my own personal experience as a former "student" of AR. Maybe that will help you understand my "antagonism." I'm not going to rehash everything I've said to justify my conclusion, but it is all easily available in my previous posts, should you care to read them. - Marinero 24.16.237.186 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, Marinero, for not responding to your posting sooner. I don’t come here very often and I just read it today. It does seem to me that your posting makes my point. For good or ill, you are a person with an axe to grind and such people are seldom very reliable sources of balanced impartiality concerning their subject. I’ve known quite a few bitter Catholics, for example. And while I accept the validity of their individualized bad experience with the church I wouldn’t go to them if I wanted an accurate portrayal of Roman Catholicism itself. For someone who doesn’t have a quarrel with the philosophy, you sure do a lot of quarrelling with it. I have indeed read your posts and I don’t see anything in them that points to the positive value in Aesthetic Realism with specificity and depth. They are rather unenlightening on that subject. I think your argument would have more weight if it were more balanced. Your purpose seems to be other than that, at least that’s how it strikes me although I can cetainly agree that you seem to be more angry with individuals in the concrete who study Aesthetic Realism and with whom you've obviously had a falling out than with the philosophy itself in the abstract. -- Digital Scribe 23.10.11 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a blog where one reviews posts. Please keep the discussion on the topic of this talk page: improving the article. Jonathunder (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Yes, LoreMariano is an Aesthetic Realist, but Wikipedia is an open community, so let's give her a chance to learn the ropes. Even people with biases are capable of writing NPOV, and some of her edits have indeed improved the article. She certainly seems willing to try to be reasonable, unlike the infamous Arnold Perey/samivel. And if she's not, then there are enough fair-minded editors here to catch the problem.

About her idea that criticism shouldn't go in the first paragraph, I decided to use the Scientology article as an arbiter, before I even looked at it. Once I opened it I saw that indeed, the cult allegations aren't in the first paragraph. So I'm willing to concede that the criticism of AR need not be in the first paragraph.

I do think AR's tenets are best presented in list form, not paragraph form. People spend their lives studying these concepts and there's some weight to them. Three big concepts are too much to digest in paragraph form. Also, this is traditionally how AR has presented their 3 (sometimes 4) tenets over the years, so it's true to the source. However, quoting Siegel directly hides the implications of his statements (e.g., AR doesn't just state that people have a tendency towards contempt, they think it leads to unhappiness and even insanity).

Yes, the "Public presentations at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation..." paragraph was an obvious advertisement, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

LoreMariano apparently prefers to discuss her problems elsewhere, as opposed to on the article talk page, or discussing them with those whose actions she dislikes. Regardless, lists don't belong in intros. I've put the "tenets" in sentence form. If they are too much for the lead, they should go in the body of the article. If you wish, move them there under the philosophy heading and explain them as much as you think they need to be explained - they really don't belong in the lead at all. The Ten Commandments don't appear as a bullet list in the lead of "Christianity" - heck, they aren't quoted in any form in the lead of Ten Commandments - and these three tenets certainly don't need to be quoted in the lead of this article. - Outerlimits (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember to focus on edits, not editors.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Still learning about consensus, so please bear with me. Since my edits are being discussed, here are my initial comments:

It is my understanding that the initial description of Aesthetic Realism should be in keeping with the way the source would describe it. I agree with Michael Bluejay that three big concepts are too much to digest in paragraph form and are better stated in bulleted points. That being said, the most objectionable thing to the way the lead entry now stands is that quote marks are put around sentences that are not quotes. I am willing to work with everyone on a description that is acceptable to all, whether a direct quote or paraphrase that is accurate.

The first link to the Bklyn Assemblyman article is bizarre. I don’t see that it has any bearing to the biography of Eli Siegel and only serves to put forth a negative POV.

Can someone please explain to me why a reference link would be put this way: \cite web |last= Reiss|first= Ellen|coauthors= |title= |url= http://www.aestheticrealism.org/tro1749.html |date= 22 July 2009|work= The Right of
Aesthetic Realism to Be Known|publisher= Aesthetic Realism Foundation|accessdate=27 July 2009\" instead of just pasting in the url? The link I used pointed directly to the principles http://www.aestheticrealism.org/tro1749.html#principles

About the sentence: “Aesthetic Realism is probably best known by the claim that gays and lesbians could stop being homosexual” -- I’m not sure that this is a true statement and at any rate, it's not a fact that can be easily verified.

I am more than willing to work towards a lead entry we can all live with. The lead has degenerated quite a bit in the last day. LoreMariano 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

LoreMariano, thank you for discussing edits respectfully. On listing AR's tenets in bullet form (as they've been traditionally presented), you and I agree but Outerlimits does not. Would any others care to weigh in on this? Lore, since you're new I should explain that Wikipedia operates by "consensus" but that doesn't mean "democracy". That is, we don't say that it's 2-1 in favor of bulleted points so that's what we'll have. Outerlimits has no authority to insist on his version, but neither do you and I put together. The best resolution is when there's a substantial agreement among a significant number of editors. When the number of editors is small then there's no easy answer. In extreme cases editors can request mediation or arbitration, but those processes are slow and are considered a last resort. There is nothing preventing us from continuing to change the article to the way we prefer, and then Outerlimits continuing to change it back to the way he prefers, except that there's a rule that there can be no more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, and when there's a flurry of reverting an admin will generally come by and lock the article so no one can edit it until an agreement can be reached.

I agree with removing the quotes on sentences that aren't actually quotes. I think you're talking about the third sentence, possibly also the first, but I think we agree that #2 is verbatim from Siegel.

I can't speak to why the Village Voice article is the first cited regarding the origins of AR. My guess is that someone was looking for a third-party source to quote and that was the easiest one to grab. The Jewish Times article would be better, since it's more specific to AR itself rather than to the funding controversy. You're free to find some other (non-AR, third-party) source and replace the one that's there.

About your question about how a source is cited, have a look at the footnotes at the bottom of the page. By formatting the cite with all that weird code, the Footnote format is generated automatically.

I think it's possible to verify that AR is best known for its program to change gays, for starters by looking at all the press that AR has received, including the ads it purchased. It bought ads in three major newspapers to tout the gay remedy, not to tout its answer to racism or poverty, or its teaching method. It got TV time to talk about the gay remedy, not to tout its answer to racism or poverty, or its teaching method. The only radio interview I've granted about AR was to OutQ on Sirius, and you can guess what they wanted to talk about. There was one article I'm aware of about the AR teaching method, but it's in the minority. In 1971, according to "The H Persuasion", there were about 100 people studying Aesthetic Realism, but membership then grew and peaked during the gay cure years, and since that program was discontinued, membership has shrunk again to about 100. And if I'm not mistaken, AR had more consultants dealing with the H issue than with any other specific topic. If you have any evidence that AR is best-known for some other issue, I'm sure we're willing to consider it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. From the AR book _The H Persuasion_, p. xvii: "[T]he request for consultations [to learn how to change from homosexuality] became an almost overwhelming demand." I don't think AR ever got such a similar response from people looking to remedy racism, poverty, etc. MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead of an article - the section before the table of contents - is meant to be a concise overview of, and introduction to, the article. In good articles, it will consist of 1 to 4 paragraphs. Lists and bullet points belong elsewhere. See WP:LEAD. The lead is not a place for details, but for overview. Many leads have no citations at all, because all of the material that appears there appears elsewhere (with proper references) in the article. Unfortunately, in contentious articles, this is generally not possible and citations are needed in the lead.

Consensus, of course, necessarily involves compromise. I have no objection to listing the three statements as bullet points in the body of the article, as I've already pointed out, though even there, bullet points are still considered stylistically inferior to actual prose.

Now, those bullet points should actually be sourced to a publication with Eli Siegal's name on it, rather than to a self-published newsletter that simply asserts that Eli Siegal said them somewhere or other. We want to cite the original occurrence. If these are not actually his quotes, it's even more important to cite who is asserting that these are the three most important principles, since it seems there is some fluidity as to what's "most important" in AR.

As to quality of references: ideally we want to cite third parties, rather than parties with conflict of interest (students and former cult members). It's improper to - which has been admitted to elsewhere as a goal - manipulate references to ensure that a particular point of view (that of the students) appears as the first reference in the article, as opposed to the opposite point of view (that of former cult members). The appropriate reference is a third party reference. Of course, third parties write about Aesthetic Realism far, far less than students and former cult members do. The first few pages in most Google searches on the subject will be cluttered with the output of interested parties rather than truly citable references. So by all means if you find some other third party publication to use for the first reference, substitute it. In such a circumstance, the Village Voice reference can be moved to a point later in the article with a discussion of the small disturbance about the ultimately withdrawn pork. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I refer to students and former cult members to honor the rights of the two sides to reasonably label themselves.

Thank you for the explanations on consensus and on reference link formatting.

I am reverting to a more neutral point of view until we can hash out future edits we all agree on.

Regarding the opening paragraph: Can Outerlimits please provide samples of what he considers “good articles”?

Regarding the tone of first paragraph: I have to defend the right of Aesthetic Realism to be described in its terms before other views are presented. Again, the second and third paragraphs present opposing views and in all fairness to Aesthetic Realism, the opening paragraph should be true to the source.

I would agree that Aesthetic Realism is best known in the gay community for the change from homosexuality but there are large demographic areas in which it is more known for its explanation of poverty and racism. LoreMariano (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Did I respond to a robot? Is Sine Bot an automated message?

It's bad form to revert to your preferred version when disputed passages are under discussion. "More neutral point of view" is not a synonym for "the version I prefer". The version you reverted to is certainly not more neutral.

I will provide a list of what Wikipedia (not I) considers good articles: WP:GA. Articles of yet higher quality are featured articles.

No one has attacked the "right" of Aesthetic Realism to be described in its own terms, so there is no need for you to "defend" it.

And the knowledge of Aesthetic Realism's fascination with homosexuality and its claims that it made gays straight is not by any means limited to the gay community; if anyone in the general public has heard of AR, that's generally why, which is perfectly understandable, given the national publicity AR sought and achieved by this means. Of course, the very young may have missed this little bit of history. In contrast, AR's concern with poverty and racism is virtually unknown to the general public.

Sinebot is a bot that signs the postings of people who don't sign for themselves. - Outerlimits (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While AR might be best known for various other things in various other circles, that's not really the point of the sentence (or why that sentence exists in the summary in the first place). The point is to state what AR is best known for *overall*. In your response you don't seem to disagree that AR is best known for the gay change program overall, just that certain groups know it better for other things.

Although I don't favor the revert, I'm content to refrain from editing until we can hash things out. How about you offer your suggested introduction here on the Talk page? Or do you like the introduction you reverted to the way it is?

Don't worry about bots (automated programs), they roam WP cleaning up all manner of little editing issues on both article and Talk pages. They don't make their own posts on Talk pages, just edits, so you didn't respond to one. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've been looking for an authoritative source for the 3-4 tenets of AR. Amazingly, they don't appear that way in _Self and World_, which is essentially AR's Bible. They appear everywhere else that way, and by everywhere else I mean not AR's books. They do appear in the center-spread ad in the NYT on Jan. 10, 1990 (pp. A14-A15), appearing like this:

Here are three principles of this great, ever so needed education, stated by Eli Siegel:

[1] Man's deepest desire, his largest desire, is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
[2] The desire to have contempt for the outside world and for people and other objects as standing for the outside world,
is a continuous, unseen desire making for mental insufficiency.
[3] The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.
[Self and World (New York: Definition Press), pp. 1, 83]

Note that _Self and World_ does *not* list these is three separate items. Page 1 includes items 1 and 2, and page 83 includes item 3, all in paragraph form. From page 1:

 Preface: Contempt Causes Insanity

 The First Question

 Is it true, as Aesthetic Realism said years ago, that man's deepest desire, his largest desire, is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis?
 And is it true, as Aesthetic Realism said later, that the desire to have contempt for the outside world and for people and other objects
as standing for the outside world, is a continuous, unseen desire making for mental insufficiency?

From page 83:

 It is perhaps the most compact and comprehensive introduction to an understanding of Siegel's central idea:
"The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites."

Page 1 is Eli Siegel himself, page 83 is Martha Baird Siegel quoting Siegel.

Despite the fact that the tenets don't appear in line-item form in _Self and World_, I still think they should be presented that way in the intro because (1) it makes it a hell of a lot easier to read, and (2) this is *generally* how the tenets are presented. It's how I'm most familiar with them. For example, I'm sure more people saw the NY Times ad than bought _Self and World_. Anyway, I think _Self and World_ would be a good cite. In theory we could cite the ad, but that's awkward, especially because it would look like we're citing the NY Times per se, not a purchased ad in that newspaper. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

These tenets, then, are not a summary by Eli Siegel of his own philosophy? They are instead someone else's formulation based on extracts of his writings? That's quite remarkable; one would think that the ARF would make this clear when they publish them, since their presentation makes it seem like a quotation. To say they are "stated by Eli Siegel" seems almost deceptive; at best, it seems, they were culled by someone else from his writings, changed from questions into statements, and elevated to tenets. So there's even less reason, then, to present it as bullet points. It's reasonable to have the article describe what AR thinks of itself, but it's completely unreasonable to allow that organization to determine an article's orthography. The standard practice here is to use prose rather than lists, and certainly to use prose in the lead. As I stated above, consensus necessarily involving compromise, I have no objection to listing the three statements as bullet points in the body of the article, even though it's now apparent that Siegel himself didn't present them that way, but they should not appear as such in the introduction. Perhaps Siegel knew more than his followers in his choice of presentation. - Outerlimits (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Outerlimits, I'm going to ask you to trust me on this one. Remember, I'm a former member, I've been on the inside. The AR people might be deceptive about a lot of things, but definitely not this one. The (variously) three or four tenets were ubiquitous, even while Siegel was alive. The "four fundamental principles" are listed on p. vii of _The H Persuasion_, written by one of the book's contributors, attributing them to Siegel. And you can rest assured that if Siegel didn't like them being presented that way (in the book and everywhere else) he would have said so, and you can be equally assured that if he said so they would have been gone in a heartbeat without and counterargument. They're also not inaccurate: If you read Siegel and try to summarize his philosophy, this is exactly what you come up with. I still feel strongly that these heady ideas are best served as individual list items in the intro. "Standard practice" might differ, but most articles aren't a philosophy centered around three or four distinct and weight points. Practice should be flexible. MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly take your word that he didn't object to them, but it's still a bit misleading to say "stated by Eli Siegel". Regardless, the point of the introduction is to present AR to a general readership, not those who are "used to" these tenets to the degree that they'd miss the bullet point format. The content is the same whether the points are separated by bullets and carriage returns or semicolons; but the former presentation is inappropriate to the lead of an encyclopedia article, no matter how good ARF thinks it looks in an ad. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not a carbon copy of AR advertisements. If the ideas are so heady, they should be elaborated in the philosophy section, where you could devote paragraphs to their explication. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my position. I'm not saying the tenets should be presented in list form for the benefit of those "used to" seeing them that way. I'm not saying they should be presented in list form because AR thinks they look good in an ad. I'm saying they should be in list form precisely because they best serve the general readership of the encyclopedia that way.

I'm a writer by trade. When concepts get muddied by a paragraph format, because too many disparate ideas are being presented in prose, I break them out into a more easily understandable list. I don't think we're going to convince each other about this. I hope some other editors will weigh in on this subject. MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting your position because I haven't claimed to have represented your position; I've presented my hypothesis as to other reasons that may have influenced your feelings on this issue. In any case, there's a strong consensus on Wikipedia that article text should be presented in paragraph rather than list form; I have no objection to us making a "request for comments" on the issue of bullet lists in leads. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's make a “request for comments” on the issue of using bulleted lists in a lead description.

If there is no objection to using a direct quote in the introduction, there is this description written by Eli Siegel in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247 (December 21, 1977), titled: “Aesthetic Realism: A Tripartite Study":

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt.

I would like to better understand what is meant by a “secondary source” since reference links have been contentious. If a newspaper article about Aesthetic Realism is posted either on the Aesthetic Realism Foundation website or on Michael Bluejay's site, are those articles considered secondary sources because they've been published in a (secondary source) newspaper, or are they considered self-promoting/advertising because the website has chosen to include them in their site? Related questions are: Is there a hierarchy of reliability by source type – i.e., blogs, websites, newspapers? What is considered most reliable? What is considered least reliable?

To answer Michael Bluejay's question: For the purpose of putting this behind us and moving on, yes, I would agree to keeping the entry in its reverted state, including the paraphrased principles in the lead.

LoreMariano (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote of Siegel is excellent, but it's not in list format, and now that you've found a good direct quote of Siegel on a description of Aesthetic Realism in paragraph format, it will be harder to argue for the list format that you and I wanted. Anyway, here's the info on how to do a Request for Comment, though I think that's just a tad premature. What I suggest you do first is to present on this talk page the entire introduction section, the way you'd like to see it appear in the article. To answer your questions about sources, see WP:RS. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer either of the options listed below--that is, a direct quote with a citation or the previously edited version which contains a link to Eli Siegel's biography. However, as previously stated, I would also agree to keeping the entry in its present reverted state. I am not contesting paragraphs two and three though I disagree with the POV.

I think I have done everything I can to make my position clear. I would like to suggest that we all agree on one of these options or take it to the next level. LoreMariano (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Option 1: Definition of Aesthetic Realism - a direct quote by Eli Siegel, with citation:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. In The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247 (December 21, 1977), he presented Aesthetic Realism as a three-part study this way:

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt.

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.

LoreMariano (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Option 2: Definition is paraphrased in bulleted points with a link to Eli Siegel's biography (revert to 23:48, 23 July 2009 version)

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Its primary teachings are:

• Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
• Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
• The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior—causes unhappiness and even insanity.

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.

LoreMariano (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you made so many changes in your last rewrite of the article, we will have to separate out the changes and discuss them individually - I suppose one paragraph at a time will do; I'm limiting my comments to the first paragraph for the moment. Option 1a is best, I would think, which is Option 1 with standard quotation and citation format (I've also made the 2nd sentence more concise):

Option 1a: Definition of Aesthetic Realism - a direct quote by Eli Siegel, with citation:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. He enumerated Aesthetic Realism's three parts as: "One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt."

- Outerlimits (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the intro paragraph in Option 1a, but I think this minor rewording is less awkward and flows better.

"Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Siegel explained the basis of Aesthetic Realism as...

If we can all agree on this, then we can edit the article accordingly and move on to the next bits of the intro.MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How about: He explained it as a three-part study which says:

Is there an objection to the block quote style?

LoreMariano (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(PS - Sorry, I didn't realize I was not signed in when I made the last edit. I deleted the IP address edit and replaced it with this one.)

I can go either way about the block quote. I don't think the language of the "three-part study" is an improvement over what I suggested, but in the spirit of moving things along, I won't object. MichaelBluejay (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I prefer block quote for the same reason I initially preferred bulleted points. Set off, the text is easier to read, particularly on mobile devices. I am on a BlackBerry and it's hard to read as a quote within a paragraph. Outerlimits, if you view on a BB, I think you'll agree.

LoreMariano (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And I oppose block quote for the same reason I initially opposed bullet points. The standard here is that our articles are prose. There's no reason to break this very short paragraph into two paragraphs. I don't use a Blackberry, nor do we format our articles for specific viewscreens, because what looks good on one looks bad on another. People can modify the "skin" they use if they prefer different appearances; I believe there are already solutions for Blackberry such as Wikipedia for BlackBerry. Mobile Wikipedia, Wapedia and other programs and sites referenced here. If we changed the content of our articles for Blackberry, every sentence would be a new paragraph. As for "three-part study", I too don't think it's an improvement, but unlike the blockquote, it's not a deal-breaker. If you think "three-part study" adequately sets up the quote, then I would defer to you. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the formatting is a deal breaker for me. The three large ideas of Aesthetic Realism should stand on their own as a direct quote in a block indent.

Though I prefer the prose in the description of Aesthetic Realism by its founder, Eli Siegel, my vote is to leave the bullet point description. I did not write them nor are they as accurate as they could be, but at least they're clearly delineated.

I think we're back to asking for comments on the use of bullet points in a lead description. We should ask for comments on the use of a block quote style too.

How is this for a neutral description of the issue to submit in the RFC: "Is there a ban on using bullet points or a block indent (for a direct quote) in the lead description?"

LoreMariano (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's clearly not a neutral description. The issue is not "is there a ban", but "which alternative is better". A neutral description would present the two options and ask which one is preferable, the one with, or the one without, the block quote in the lead. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask for a clarification on what the rules are, not which version is liked best.

How about this as a neutral description: "Editors disagree on whether a block quote or bullet points should be used in a lead description. Please comment."

If you don't like that, please suggest something in keeping with a request for clarification on the rules so that a resolution can be come to based on the rules. If you don't want clarification on the rules but rather a dispute resolution based on differing tastes, that's something else to consider.

LoreMariano (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What Outerlimits said about paragraph form being more literary and more in keeping with an encyclopedia at first made sense to me. Paragraph form may be more literary, but MichaelBluejay is right. The ideas need space.

Running them all together may be OK if there were more information around the quote, which is the way the original source is written, but it wouldn’t work for a wikipedia lead, in my opinion. It's too easy to jump over the ideas themselves. And that isn’t really what we want.

My vote is to use the quote, but separate each sentence as a bullet point.

From the point of view of Wikipedia reliability, the most reliable summary is Eli Siegel’s own summary. Wikipedia has so much bad press about being sloppy, I think we should use the real thing.

In bulleted points, it would look like this:

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly.

Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites.

Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt.

These are the perfect lead into the longer philosophic explanations of them which are in the article already.

Sorry LoreMariano and MichaelBluejay, I know you both want to settle this and move on. And I 'm making it more complicated.

B.K.S.J. (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullet points or a block quote may be the best way to present these ideas in the body, but would be much too much for the lead. The lead should be a brief prose overview. Jonathunder (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

To review where we are:

1) Outerlimits objects to the use of bullet points in the first paragraph on the basis that using "lists" is not in keeping with the prose style of Wikipedia introductions.

2) A prose style option was submitted by LoreMariano. It used a direct quote with a block indent.

3) Outerlimits objected to the use of the block indent style, for the same reason he objected to using the bulleted points: "The standard here is that our articles are prose."

4) A RFC was considered. Outerlimits felt LoreMariano's proposed description of the issue ("Is there a ban on using bullet points or a block indent (for a direct quote) in the lead description?") was "clearly not a neutral description."

5.) LoreMariano suggested an alternative: "Editors disagree on whether a block quote or bullet points should be used in a lead description. Please comment."

6) To date, Outerlimits has not commented as to whether the revised description of the issue is acceptable or not.

7) There is a disagreement between Outerlimits and LoreMariano as to what the RFC should be about. LoreMariano would like clarification on Wikipedia rules as to formatting lead introductions. Outerlimits would like to ask for an arbitrated decision.

As an alternative, in response to the objection on the use of bullet points and/or a block indent style, here is a third option: a prose introduction which does not use a long direct quote.

LoreMariano (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Option 3: Prose Introduction with shorter direct quotes (no block indents):

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel. He stated, "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves." His 15 questions: "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?" published in 1955 in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, asks whether every instance of art puts together opposites such as freedom and order, logic and emotion, simplicity and complexity. The philosophy teaches "that reality has an aesthetic structure and that therefore the deepest purpose of everyone is to like reality or the world as much as possible." [The Right of Aesthetic Realism to be Known, #260, March 22, 1978]

In Self and World: an Explanation of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel examines how aesthetics is crucial in understanding love and resolving self-conflict. If opposites such as strength and grace, assertion and yielding, can be one in a line of poetry, or music, in a ballet, or a painting, it means these opposites can be one in a person's life as well. However, there is also an opposing hope in every person, to separate oneself from reality, and lessen the meaning of other things and people in order to see one’s self as superior. Contempt is the cause of unhappiness, injustice, including racism and even insanity.

LoreMariano (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the numbered points:

• [1] I am not the only objector to bullet points and block indents. The two "sides" on this issue seem to delineate thusly: those who are or were personally involved with Aesthetic Realism prefer to somehow denote the importance of Eli Siegel's words typographically, and those who have not been personally involved with Aesthetic realism prefer a standard prose introduction without such typographical effects. Siegel himself did not resort to such effects in the article from which we are quoting.
• [5/6] To clarify the history, I suggested that we present the two options and ask which was preferable, and you tacitly rejected this, preferring to present a more general question. RFCs are for specific questions; in this case, the wording would be something along the lines of "Alternative introductions for the article Aesthetic Realism have been presented on the article's talk page, with some editors insisting that bullet points or a block quote be used in the lead, and other editors insisting on a prose introduction. Please voice your opinions."
• [7] If you want clarification on issues of style, the first step would be to ask at WP:MOS. And no, I didn't ask for an "arbitrated decision", which, on this question, at least, would pretty much be unavailable here.

As for the new two paragraph version, I think there's far too much detail there. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

LoreMariano, I think you were going in the right direction and then got sidetracked somehow. Option 3 takes us away from the progress we've made, because it doesn't clearly summarize the main tenets of AR right away. I suggest we go back to describing the 3 tenets up front, and use an RfC to help decide whether to list the tenets in list or prose format. Outerlimits has seemed to give you some pointers on how to approach an RFC.

Outerlimits, it's Siegel, not Siegal. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. I suppose I'll have to think of a mnemonic. I thought "i before e" was enough, but clearly...not. - Outerlimits (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the Opening Description

We need guidance in how to format the opening description. Alternative introductions for the article Aesthetic Realism have been presented on the article's talk page. We are unable to come to a consensus on the use of bullet points, a block quote, or a two-paragraph prose description for the opening. We would appreciate your comments. LoreMariano (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• RfC response. An article introduction should provide a brief intro to the fundamental basics and focus on a summary overview of the article. Bullet points and blockquotes should be avoided. Quotations and specific commentary should also be avoided except to sparingly highlight certain points, rarely express a succinct encapsulation by an author, and/or address a particular author or school that is central or a large portion of the topic. Assume the reader knows nothing of the topic area and needs a concise overview in common language. Details and distinctive quotations should be covered in the main article body. --Vassyana (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• RfC response. I agree with Vassyana, good quality prose is what is needed in the lead section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• RfC response. Agree with Vassyana and Martin Hogbin. "Concise overview in common language," is exactly correct. This may indeed mean that some fine points and distinctions meaningful to experts are discussed later in sub-titled paragraphs. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

reads like a brochure

This article reads like a brochure for Aesthetic Realism. It is clear that Wikipedia's integrity has been compromised on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.34.34 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel that way? The third paragraph likens Aesthetic Realism to a "cult." Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

@MichaelBluejay; @Outerlimits: Let's see what other comments come in this week. LoreMariano (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suspect we've gotten all the answers to the request for comments at this point. Both answers were as I expected: Prose, not bullet points or quotations, is what is called for in a lead section of a Wikipedia article. How does this seem as the first paragraph: "Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. It sees beauty in art as the unification of opposites, and explains human behavior as the result of two opposite tendencies: to value the world as it is, and to increase one's importance by denigrating others. Aesthetic Realism calls this latter tendency "contempt", and sees it as the root cause of unhappiness and insanity." I would suggest that Siegel's quote be retained and moved down to the body of the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing the discussion, it seems to me that the prose description written by LoreMariano of August 3rd is more accurate. Keravnos (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear what you consider inaccurate in my proposed paragraph. The version of August 3 is, as I mentioned then, too detailed for a lead, selecting out particular passages for emphasis that are really no different from other similar passages, and so giving them undue importance. It might be suitable in the body of the article, but not the lead. I'd suggest that a glance at WP:LEAD might help clarify what we're looking for: concision is key. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to work on the opening paragraph further.

1) Technically it is "the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism," not "a philosophy of aesthetics." I know you didn't initially use that phrase. It is larger than a philosophy of aesthetics, although it includes that. It is a philosophic approach to reality that sees the questions of people as aesthetic and philosophic.

2) Yes, Aesthetic Realism does identify the two drives in a person, but it is over simplified here. Aesthetic Realism explains that the self is an aesthetic situation. A person is always trying to put together opposing drives: there is a drive towards the world and a drive towards self as exclusive of the world.

I am willing to work on a more concise opening description if you are willing to move down the paragraphs on homosexuality and "allegations of cult" to those respective sections. I don't want to open up the body of the article for an editing war, as I'm sure you do not. In keeping with the common format found on other entries on philosophy such as Objectivism and Metaphysics, the heading now titled "Allegations of cult behavior" should be changed to "Criticism."

Please let me know if you agree that I should work on a more concise opening and the paragraphs on homosexuality and "allegations of cult" can be moved into the body of the article with no assumption that the body is now open for edits. LoreMariano (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment in passing: The introduction section should contain an overview of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information.   Will Beback  talk  17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take the article on Objectivism. The lead presents the philosophic principles, right or wrong, true or false. It doesn't start out "Rand's philosophy has been the object of criticism by prominent intellectuals."

By the way, I don't think the RfC ever made it to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues page. It is posted on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy page. Is there a way to resend it so that it gets on the Style issues page? LoreMariano (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As Will Beback notes, the inclusion of all points of view within the lead is not a point that is subject to negotiation, but something that is required by Wikipedia's WP:NPOV:NPOV policy. As to [1] "the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism" vs "a philosophy of aesthetics", if that's the way it is described by its followers, I would have no difficulty with using their preferred phrase (though the non-indoctrinated reader is not going to think the former is "larger" than the latter; as to [2], simplification is necessary in leads; I'm not sure that your most recent wording is clearer than mine, but it's a step in the right direction from your previous effort. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of concision, LoreMariano's description is two paragraphs long. WP:LEAD states, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs." It seems her description fits the guidelines. Keravnos (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline advises concision; the four-paragraph length is a limit, not a goal, and the guidelines do not advise you to include irrelevant detail as long as the final result isn't five paragraphs long. Conciseness and length are related but not identical: the goal is to include only relevant facts, which don't include putting publication details in the lead. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One WP guideline is to "assume good faith", but after LoreMariano writes, "I am willing to work on a more concise opening description if you are willing to move down the paragraphs on homosexuality and "allegations of cult" to those respective sections," it's clear that her agenda is biased censorship. I won't engage under these circumstances, I'll merely defend the integrity of the article. MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Keravnos, who exactly are you? And if you're Arnold Perey (you sure edit like him), (1) Why didn't you say so, and (2) Why have you created a *third* username? MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Resend RfC to Wikipedia Style, Referencing, and Layout

I am resending this Request for Comments as it appears the first request to Wikipedia Style, Referencing, and Layout did not post properly. We need guidance in how to format the opening description. Alternative introductions for the article Aesthetic Realism have been presented on the article's talk page. We are unable to come to a consensus on the use of bullet points, a block quote, or a two-paragraph prose description for the opening. We would appreciate your comments. LoreMariano (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You already received two comments from uninvolved editors, one of them a respected member of the Arbitration Committee, who both agreed.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If she wants a do-over, it won't hurt anything; the answer will be the same and all it means is a little more delay in fixing the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe she is not asking for a do-over but is saying the original RFC "did not post properly" and in fact it did not post at all on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Style_issues until she re-posted it on 21 August 2009. A programming glitch I'm sure. B.K.S.J. (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actioning requested comments

The requests for comments have run their course, and it's time to start implementing the elicited suggestions, specifically the removal of bullet points and using actual prose. I've placed the emended prose opening in the article. Now that we've moved beyond that, I think we can begin discussion about Lore's other changes, such as the removal of the external link to MichaelBluejay's site (Aesthetic Realism is a cult). - Outerlimits (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI the external link you refer to was removed by Will BeBack. The reason is external links are not used in lead-ins to an article. Links to a reference on the Wikipedia page are used, though. I think I am remembering this correctly. B.K.S.J. (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There's no need to rely on your memory; see the "External Links" section in this diff, which made many undiscussed changes. -Outerlimits (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Will BeBack moved POVs to the end and reformatted the external links as references on July 23. LoreMariano (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and he left the external link to MichaelBluejay's site (Aesthetic Realism is a cult) in the external links section, which you subsequently removed in your edit of July 28, without giving a reason for that removal. What was your rationale for the removal of that link? - Outerlimits (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not so. On July 23, the last day Will BeBack edited, there was no link to MichaelBluejay's site in the external links section. Michael Bluejay inserted the link to his site into the external links section a few days later.

This is a copy of the external links section on July 23, as Will BeBack left it:

External links (on July 23 2009)

Web site of Aesthetic Realism Foundation

The Terrain Gallery

“Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies”

"Aesthetic Realism: A New Foundation for Interdisciplinary Musicology" by Edward Green, Professor of Music in the Proceedings of the Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM04), Edited by R. Parncutt, A. Kessler & F. Zimmer, Graz/Austria, 15-18 April, 2004.

Hattersley, Ralph. Review of Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There—Six Artists on the Siegel Theory of Opposites by David Bernstein et al., Popular Photography, November, 1969.

"Aesthetic Realism and the Answer to Racism" An anthology of writings by people of diverse ethnicities.

And this is a copy of the external links section on July 26 after Michael Bluejay added the link to his website:

External links (on July 26 2009, with new link added by Michael Bluejay)

Web site of Aesthetic Realism Foundation

Aesthetic Realism is a cult

The Terrain Gallery

“Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies”

"Aesthetic Realism: A New Foundation for Interdisciplinary Musicology" by Edward Green, Professor of Musicin the Proceedings of the Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM04), Edited by R. Parncutt, A. Kessler & F. Zimmer, Graz/Austria, 15-18 April, 2004.

Hattersley, Ralph. Review of Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There—Six Artists on the Siegel Theory of Opposites by David Bernstein et al., Popular Photography, November, 1969.

"Aesthetic Realism and the Answer to Racism" An anthology of writings by people of diverse ethnicities.

B.K.S.J. (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me try one more time to get a straightforward answer from Lore: On July 28, you removed the link to Aesthetic Realism is a cult from the external links section. What was the reason for that, and is there any reason why it should not be restored? - Outerlimits (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn’t realize it had been added when I reverted to Will BeBack’s July 23rd version. It was inserted without any discussion (July 26th) and in fact Michael Bluejay omitted that he added it in the description of edits: “Re-list AR tenets, add back criticism and identify as such.”

Michael Bluejay’s site should not be included in the External links section. It is original research—created for the purpose of advancing his position. LoreMariano (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How is that different than the five or so external links--which you retained--created by followers of Aesthetic Realism for the purpose of advancing their positions? Should they also be removed? - Outerlimits (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Bluejay site was removed by Skoojal in August because it does not meet Wikipedia standards. The following is what's left on the Talk page of the reasons Skoojal gave:

A. The first statement of Skoojal replies to Bluejay's post that his site is “authoritative”:

"It [Michael Bluejay's website] is a self-published website. It's irrelevant whether it's called a blog or not. Statements that a self-published website is "authoritative" would naturally be more convincing coming from someone other than the person who created the website. Skoojal (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)"

B. Skoojal's second statement replies to Bluejay's objection to his site being called a “blog.”

"As you probably know, 'blog' is a term that's commonly used to describe any self-published website. There is no absolute policy against citing self-published websites - it's just not allowed in most cases. See the policy here [3], including the words 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I do not believe that your website meets this standard. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"

C. And finally he says,

"The website I removed does not meet that standard. 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority' are included in links normally to be avoided. And in fact, the web page in question was been used as a source; WP:V does apply to that. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"

Skoojal gave definitive reasons. Other editors could add evidence why he is right. B.K.S.J. (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering for Lore, B.K.S.J., I'm sure she appreciates it. But you didn't answer the main question: what makes the self-published AR links acceptable, and the self-published anti-AR links unacceptable? What applies to one applies to the other. So I suppose we should remove them. - Outerlimits (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to what makes the two different is verifiability, but I don't want to go there at the moment. Can you please clarify further what you're saying—you want to remove all the links in the External links section, including to Aesthetic Realism (if Michael Bluejay's site isn't included in the list)? So there would be no External links section at all? If we remove the links from the External links section, then would we also remove them from Footnotes or do Footnotes follow different rules? And lastly, what about including it in the Sites critical...section? LoreMariano (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• May I make a suggestion? Include only a single link to the AR Foundation.
• I've had experience with a similar, though more intense, dispute on an article about the leader of another group. Once everyone agreed to having just one link the fighting about links ended almost entirely. Such an agreement is clear and it's easily enforceable. Wikipedia is intended as a self contained reference work, not a web directory. There are WP policy reasons for doing this as well, but the most important reason is that it makes sense and seems to work.
• It's up to editors here to find a consensus. (Which is "Latin" for "no one is actively opposed".) Consensus doesn't have to be explicit - often, it simply means that folks have stopped arguing about an dispute.   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Having a single link will streamline the article. I like the fact that it is clear and easily enforceable.

I would also like to make a minor change to this sentence to improve the grammar: "Students of Aesthetic Realism use these principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage." I would like to change it to: "Students of Aesthetic Realism use these principles to analyze a wide variety of topics and teach classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage." LoreMariano (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some disagreement over exactly what constitutes "self-published". By its strictest definition, the website I maintain is self-published, but then again, so is AR's "Countering the Lies" website, and even the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's website as well. In any event, I must point out yet again that "self-published" isn't the same thing as "self-written", which is how the Aesthetic Realists typically try to describe my site in order to try to discredit it. But in fact, the site contains writings by at least a dozen other former members of the group, as well as *many original source documents*, such as AR's newspaper ads, quotes from AR books, and articles from the mainstream media. And when I have time to add them, it will contain hundreds of letters from Aesthetic Realists which have recently come into my possession.

Which brings me to another issue: Above all, Wikipedia should be flexible. When traditional sources (vs. self-published sources) exist, the traditional sources should be favored for sure. But for an obscure topic such as this one, the pickings for sources are sparse. In that context, sites such as "AR is a Cult" and "Countering the Lies" are some of the best External Links available. And by the way, we *are* talking about External Links here, and not *sources*. The criteria for External Links is not nearly as strict as that for Sources.

Finally, I think LoreMariano misunderstands original research as the term is used on Wikipedia. If the reference is to something outside of Wikipedia, then it's not original research by definition. Original Research means that Wikipedia is not itself the source of the information; WP's job is to summarize from existing sources. MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So there's agreement, at least, that this article has served as a link farm for Aesthetic Realism long enough, and that all its self-published websites should be removed... with one remaining, not because it's more reliable, or any less self-published, than Michaelbluejay's site - because it most certainly is not - but because it's "official". I have removed all but one of AR's self-published sites, and left the sites that are not self-published in place. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, I didn't agree. Actually, I said the opposite, that AR's "Countering the Lies" site *does* belong. But for that matter, I think "Aesthetic Realism is a Cult" definitely should be included. It's simply the most comprehensive independent resource available, with a collection of original source documents not available from any other single source. Can we get a consensus on whether it qualifies as an External Link? MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have no strong objection to returning both links. I would have a strong objection to ratifying LoreMariano's removal of the link she doesn't like without removing the links she likes. The article shouldn't be "AR's view of itself'", but"The World's view of AR". That means we can't feature AR's many self-published sites as external links while using "self-published" as a criterion to exclude other links. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As LoreMariano just returned the links she likes while not returning the link she doesn't (without any participation on the talk page), I've restored the link to Michaelbluejay's site that she previously removed without prior discussion. I suppose this is something we'll have eventually to kick upstairs to the External links noticeboard. Twice, if someone doesn't like the first answer. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: the official guideline is at WP:EL. It basically excludes all self-published sites with the exception of a link to the official website. Read it for yourselves.   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And another reminder - if fighting over this article continues then one way of dealing with the conflict would be to "stub" the article - cut it down to one sentence and rebuild it from scratch relyiong exclusively on reliable secondary sources. From my limited knowledge, there appear to be virtually no significant sources for this topic, so the article might never progress beyond a paragraph. Stubbing would be the electroshock therapy approach - dramatic but sometimes effective.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the external links to the one in the {{Official}} template. Jonathunder (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There are still two external links left in the lead that shouldn't be there. I intend to remove them. The remaining link (the official website) should go upward to the appropriate position, which is after the first sentence. I believe this is the change required by the Wikipedia guideline at WP:EL. Please respond.

P.S. As to the question about "From my limited knowledre, there appear to be virtually no significant sources for this topic" -- I will be glad to provide a list, arising from research on the subject. They would serve as sources for the major concepts in the article. B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. I don't see any proper sources in the article now.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Just a reminder: the official guideline is at WP:EL. It basically excludes all self-published sites with the exception of a link to the official website." No, that is certainly *not* what WP:EL says. The term "self-published" (with or without the hyphen) isn't even used in the policy. Further, "Aesthetic Realism is a Cult" would certainly qualify for inclusion according to the policy's criteria. Yet again, I state that the site has a plethora of important primary sources, such as the New York Post article (not available on the NY Post's website), AR's double-page ad in the New York Times (which is likely the main reason why anyone who knows about AR, does; and like the NY post ad, not available anywhere else), a reprint of their "gay cure" ad which appeared in four major national newspapers (not available anywhere else), the part of the Harper's Magazine review discussing AR, and complete transcripts of an AR consultation, lesson, and secret internal meeting. The site is simply an excellent reference on the subject. MichaelBluejay (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO

• Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:
• Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

I don't dispute that the site may be an excellent reference. But this guideline does not allow personal websites except from experts, and one of the criteria for being a recognized expert is having a Wikipedia biography. Further, linking to sites that host copyrighted material without permission is also prohibited - WP:ELNEVER. Personaly, I find sites that host hard-to-find news clippings to be very useful, but that doesn't change the equation.  Will Beback  talk  20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You continue to quote policy inaccurately, and I don't like your accusation about hosting copyrighted info without permission. First of all, a personal website is described as a site of a *personal* nature. Aesthetic Realism is a Cult isn't about me, it's about Aesthetic Realism. Second, the "recognized expert" criteria applies to material *written* by the expert. As I keep explaining, what makes the AR is a Cult site relevant is its plethora of original source documents. For some reason you're trying really hard to censor probably the best independent resource on AR around. Third, for the outside works I have on my site, I either have permission, or they constitute fair use. If you're going to assert that I'm breaking the law, exactly which material are you referring to? MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting it accurately, though we can disagree about its interpretation. My understanding of "personal web page" is one that belongs to a person, as opposed to an organization. I haven't checked what you've got on your site now, and if it's all with permission then that'd be OK. "Fair use" items would, or course, have to be excerpts rather than complete texts. Anyway, it's apparent that you're not content with the policy interpretations I've given. So I'll post this to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. You should probably follow me so you can add your own view. Then we can see what uninvolved editors think of this.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#"Aesthetic Realism is a cult".   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As promised, the following highly-respected peer-reviewed professional journals are some of the sources which have descriptions of various aspects of Aesthetic Realism and its history in them: British Journal of Aesthetics; Administration & Society; Anthropologist; Journal of the Print World; Music Educators Journal; others. The page references, dates, etc. will be provided when needed. There are other sources, such as newspaper articles, as well. B.K.S.J. (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. They're needed now. If we have reliable secondary sources then we should aim to base this article on those. Do you have access to the actual texts or just the citations?   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can provide the texts. What is the best way to do this? Shall I type relevant purtions on my talk page? B.K.S.J. (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrific. I suggest placing them at Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Making one of" (introduction)

I replaced the phrase "making one of" with "synthesis or unifying". I recognize that "making one of" is a verbatim quotation from the founder of Aesthetic Realism, but that does not mean the phrase should be used as such: it should either be "quoted" or italicized to indicate that it is a particular group's phrase OR it should be replaced with language that is otherwise more succinct and commonly used. Not knowing too much about the group, I have chosen the latter. If someone more familiar wants to take the first course, I emphasize that the phrase should be in quotes or italics to distinguish it as intentional and not a merely kind of clunky phrase which is unlikely to appear in encyclopedic writing.71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Not knowing too much about the group, I have chosen the latter"? In all politeness, it's not up to you to define beauty as Aesthetic Realism teaches it. I am fine with a direct quote and will make that change. LoreMariano (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the change to a quotation. For the record, or at least my understanding, what is the difference between a union or synthesis and a "making one of"?71.224.206.164 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of cult behavior

I expanded this section and added sourced quotes and links to commentary from prominent ex-members, reputable psychologists, and cult-experts. If there is a debate about this information, please discuss it here or on my talk page. I think the even-handed inclusion of this information is absolutely critical so that wikipedia does not become a soapbox for organization that may be harmful to individuals. Am I suggesting Aesthetic Realism is a cult? No, I'm just adding relevant information. But I do believe that the sensitivity of these claims cannot keep them out of a thorough discussion, affording them the same space and detail which the article gives to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism. Nor do I find this giving undue weight to criticism, as it reflects mainstream media coverage of the group. Finally, if there are liability or slander issues (BLP stuff), please make an attempt to conform to those issues without removing substance from the article. Thanks71.224.206.164 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted one of your edits. Please don't use a self-published website as a source. The standards for sources for use in Wikipedia are in WP:V and WP:RS.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to have a discussion, by all means let us do so. Are you aware that you have completely ignored mainstream scholarly publications, conferences, museums, authorities in their fields, etc., etc.? P.S. I wouldn't dignify cheap, tabloid journalism by calling it "mainstream media." B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BKSJ, I was not previously aware of the reception AR received in scholarly publications, though the article did inform me that no less a person than William Carlos Williams found truth in the philosophy. The issue we're dealing with, however, has two prongs and they are not necessarily related. The first issue is the philosophy itself--the ideas, their influence, and their reception. The second issue is the way that the organization founded on that philosophy actually operates and the subjective experiences of its members. My focus in editing this article is partly to make sure the philosophy is represented in a manner appropriate to an encyclopedia, with accuracy but appropriate detachment (the first prong). But mainly, my focus is on the second issue: how can this article reflect the fact that mainstream newspaper articles, as well as organizations which study new religious movements(nrm)/cults have identified Aesthetic Realism as a controversial group with which individuals have had experiences that they report as negative and cult-like? You can call the New York post a "tabloid" but a)it is not considered so by Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources; and b)the articles include the quoted opinions of ex-members, psychologists, and nrm/cult researchers which would stand on their merits regardless of the forum in which they appeared. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Three-Day Edit Blast without Consensus or Discussion

IP 71.224.206.164 cannot undo in 3 days what it took a number of editors 4+ months (120+ days) to agree on. Please do not make changes without discussion and verified consensus. If no consensus can be reached, this article will be stubbed and locked down, which, frankly, at this point, is preferable. LoreMariano (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at the changes but I agree that discussion would be the best course of action. However it's inappropriate to remove {citation needed} tags without providing a citation. Could you restore those please?   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that the IP did attempt to explain himself above. I suggest engaging in that discussion.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Absenting oneself from discussion, returning, reverting without engaging in further discussion, and then making threats on the talk page - threats which I suspect there would be a great deal of difficulty bringing to fruition - is not an appropriate or collegial action for an editor, especially one for whom there seems to be a potential problem of conflict of interest. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Outerlimits, since you have an account please log in when making significant edits. Edits by unregistered, "drive by" editor are given less weight and more frequently reverted than those of established editors. It's also a bit rude to other editors, leaving us wondering what's going on.

Also, please note this edit I made to a citation: [4] Adding a cite that just says http://michaelbluejay.com/x/nypost.html#article makes it appear that you are citing a one-person website. Adding EDELMAN, SUSAN; ALVAREZ, MARIA (February 1, 1998). "'I threw out 15 years of my life,' says ex-follower". New York Post shows that you are citing a reliable source. It's not necessary to use that exact template (some folks hate them), but you should give as much bibliographic information as you can.   Will Beback  talk  10:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I have edited this article when not logged in. I have not. The recent edits were made by someone other than me. I am well acquainted with concepts basic to appropriate referencing. It is appropriate to assess edits on the basis of whether they improve an article rather than their origin, or their perceived origin: it is at least an aspiration on Wikipedia not to discount edits by IPs simply on that basis. - Outerlimits (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology for the mistake. I mis-read your comments as taking credit for the edits.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will engage in discussion but I will not stand by and let IP 71 write about Aesthetic Realism as if it were a cult. LoreMariano (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the unvetted, undiscussed, and highly innacurate (POV) statements made by one individual ought not to stand alone. Is that person ready to discuss, point for point? B.K.S.J. (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BKSJ, I might have underestimated the amount of discussion about this article that happened in these pages, but it was apparent to me that the article took a consistent "insider" tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I edited to remove that. I am aware that I quoted sources whose veracity or reliability you dispute, but I don't believe that I made statements which were inaccurate or took a particular POV; if you can point me to them, it might be helpful. Lastly, I have taken on re-editing the article paragraph by paragraph--point by point--so that a better outcome can be reached. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding five categories to which the article Aesthetic Realism belongs

Copied from user talk:Will Beback

Right now there are only two categories at the bottom of this article, and I believe this gives an incorrect impression. These categories are: "Aesthetic Realism | Changing sexuality"

Can we also have the following: Philosophy, American Philosophy, Aesthetics, The arts, and Education?

All these categories are relevant. Aesthetic Realism belongs to them. They are needed for people to search for this philosophy in the categories to which it actually belongs.

In fact, the matter of "Changing sexuality" is really long past, and should probably not even be there.

Thank you for considering these matters. B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)B.K.S.J. (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied this here because it concerns the article so a discussion is best kept here. The applicable guideline for this is Wikipedia:Categorization. Category:Aesthetic Realism is currently a subcategory of category:Personal development. The lead of the article says "Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy..." so it's logical to add a philosophy category. Whenever we add a category we should use the most specific one possible. There are dozens of subcategories of Category:Philosophy, including Category:Aesthetics, which in turn has dozens of subcategories of its own. I don't see one for "American philosophy", but maybe I missed it. As for "The arts" or "Education", there is category: Art education - would that apply? Regarding category:Changing sexuality, even though that phase of the organization is in the past it is still a part of the topic. There was an extensive discussion about it last year (see earlier threads on this page).   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it fall under the "ethics" sub-category too. Nathan43 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there reliable secondary that characterize AR as being significantly concerned with ethics? If so then it should be categorized that way. However we shouldn't make that determination on our own or based only on primary sources. Without sources we shouldn't say anything.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits (User 71)

I rephrased a few parts of the first paragraph. I am attempting to represent the views of AR fairly, but also in language that would be familiar and common to people not directly connected to Aesthetic Realism. This might involve a touch of translation, since many philosophies use language in a way which uses particular terms or phrasings that may be uncommon outside of the philsophical discourse. I'm thinking of "in outline", "instances" in the first paragraph; there are others throughout the article that I think should be re-phrased.71.224.206.164 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as terms are clear and have been defined properly, the original language should be used as much as possible. Pretty often altering original terminology will also alter the meaning, particularly when the author has chosen his or her vocabulary carefully, as Eli Siegel most definitely did. None of us should assume we are the best judge of what language really is "familiar and common." And second, we need to make sure we have sufficient knowledge of the concepts to reword them accurately without changing their meaning to something else. Each instance needs to be taken for itself. Let's not rush. B.K.S.J. (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If I seem hasty, it's not out of disrespect; i just like editing, and am happy to consider revisions/reversions/changes/discussions, etc.... I agree that original wording is absolutely essential for art, poetry, prophecy, philosophy, and literature. But, in an encyclopedia, original phrasings must always be highlighted as unique to a particular context, quoted if used verbatim, and defined for a lay readership who will not be familiar with their specific connotations, meanings, and emphases. Otherwise, commonly used, specific, neutral, and precise language should be the standard. As for what's common, it's a you-know-it-when-you-see-it thing. I can tell when someone who's studied AR has written a sentence, just like you can tell if they haven't. I think our task is to incorporate that neutral tone, on the one hand, with the detailed and specific knowledge, on the other. Lastly, I think it bears mention, that while this page should represent the philosophy of AR fairly, it cannot be expected to capture the depth of meaning or nuance which some of its students have discovered through the original texts. It's simply not an encyclopedia's role to convey that, and summary is inevitably going to lack the beauty, nuance, and impact of the real deal. So, if an edit seems to diminish the power of Eli Siegel's words, that may be the practical nature of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a gallery. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some edits too, also for the sake of clarity and accuracy. I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia so please let me know if I do something that's against protocol. I just did a "silent edit" and I took out a link to a footnote by mistake. There have been a lot of edits on this page in the past few days. Nathan43 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions (relating to content in the introduction)

A few things popped up as I was editing the first 3 paragraphs (hopefully not too controversially).

1) What is the connection between opposites and contempt (is not having contempt accepting the negative side of the duality)? The link between the two ideas is not clear in the introduction (though maybe that's ok if it's explained in the body).

2) If aesthetic realism received glowing praise and "high opinion" from numerous articles and scholars, how was it also dismissed like keat's poetry, or einstein's theory of relativity: aren't those two reactions contradictory?

3) What is an "instance" of art? Is it different from a "work" or "piece" of art? Is that phrasing common in AR or elsewhere and I am just resisting the general ability of "instance" to encompass 'one' of just about anything? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This page exists solely to discuss improvements to the article. See WP:TPG. I don't know if there's a forum or blog devoted to this topic, but this isn't the place to discuss it. The answers to these questions would be interesting, I'm sure, but this isn't the place for that discussion.   Will Beback  talk  10:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, the idea that talk pages are for relevant substance is important, but there's no way to write an article without both understanding the subject and the ability to discuss background and context. So I think you're wrong to think these questions are just "philosophizing", whereas they directly relate to respectively 1) the logical structure and progression of ideas, 2) thematic consistency in the presentation of evidence, and 3) word choice as it pertains to a particular ideology or subculture. I think this is the place for the discussion, and I'd encourage we do more of it. Maybe some of the contentiousness in the debate could be resolved through a better understanding of ideas; at the least, it will inform my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.206.164 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we should simply be summarizing reliable secondary sources for this topic. So the first step should be determining what sources are available. If these issues are not in secondary sources then we should simply delete them.   Will Beback  talk  18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, I think this is an issue about interpreting as well as communicating secondary sources. So, my questions aren't directed towards any individual's particular opinion, but their opinion given familiarity with reliable sources. My language may sound chatty and too 'personally interested', but I don't think every issue is that easily tied to a particular source. That doesn't mean we can't find evidence for it, though. So I'll restate the questions:

1) Can we clarify the theoretical link in AR between opposites and contempt, since it stands as somewhat of a non-sequitur in the current introduction?

2) Is there a contradiction between stating that AR has received both high praise and not as much praise as it deserves? If so, can we resolve the contradiction or, if not, re-frame it so that it reflects a mere difference of opinion among parties.

3) Is the phrase "instance of art" appropriate for this article, or should the more typical "work" or "piece" of art be used. If this language is particular to AR, then some context could be provided. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To IP 71: I haven't had time today but I want to address your questions. They are big questions and I don't want to give "fast" answers. I will address them this weekend when I have more time and I'll post something on your talk page by Sunday evening. I'll also get to your question below regarding opposites in art and life. Let's not get into whether or not the discussion should take place here. I think Will is simply trying to facilitate (on this page) discussion that will lead to consensus and he's right about that. LoreMariano (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Q&A posted HERE. LoreMariano (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary phrases

LoreMariano,

1) I hope the edit track i've been on seems agreeable.

2) Your correction/reversion of a phrase you called unnecessary seems like a representative conflict that we can find some consensus on. I think any claim, particularly in an article about a particular set of ideas (which are someone/some group's philosophical assertions) needs to be attributed to that individual/group, lest we present it as fact. The edit I'm referring to is: "Opposites--such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace--may fight in a person's life, yet they work together in a successful instance of art." This assertion may seem obvious, even stunningly so, for you, but it is in fact a proposition--a statement which puts forth a particular theory about what makes a piece of art successful and what role opposites play in that. So, I added, "In this philosophy..." (a clunky phrase, but I think you see the attempted direction... perhaps "according to the philosophy...?). I might be nit-picking, but I don't think that all theories of aesthetics posit the same role or emphasis on opposites in explaining the nature of beauty and successful art. Is there a phrasing which will both represent the idea fairly and make it clear that it is a statement particular to the philosophy, rather than a general truism. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether a person approves or disapproves of the choice of words an IT specialist uses to explain the components of a computer is irrelevant: as long as the words are clearly defined and properly used, it isn't an editor's role to impose their own linguistic preferences and say that they communicate more clearly until it has been shown that they do.

An article about a philosophy should state clearly what that philosophy is, what it says, and if possible its place in world culture, including historically. Any focus on personalities is superfluous. A case in point is the Encyclopedia Britannica article on philosophic pragmatism (vide 14th Edition, Vol. 18) in which the main authors of this viewpoint are cited (Pierce, Bradley, Dewy, James, and others) but the purpose is to describe the philosophy. Whether some pragmatists attacked other pragmatists on or off the campus is irrelevant to what pragmatism is. The same for Aesthetic Realism. If we want to be professional-quality encylopedists, let us not intensify or dignify the mud-slinging. A "balanced" view of pragmatism was to stick to what it said. That's the real subject of an article on a philosophy.

Since Aesthetic Realism is about all the arts, it would be incorrect to use a phrase like "work of art" which sounds like it is only about a painting. A "piece of art" also conveys the idea of a work of visual art. What word would you use to describe how a theory of aesthetics is true about the beauty of (a) a painting, (b) a play or drama, (c) a novel, (d) a symphony. Each of these is an "instance" of art, once art is seen as including all aspects of artistic expression. I looked up the word "instance" in Webster's and it is "an individual illustrative of a category." So the use of the word is proper, even if it doesn't convey its meaning to everyone right away. Perhaps the meaning should be explained more in the article. Unless you have a better word that doesn't change the meaning, the idea, I would keep it as it is and add explanation. I expect that the writer wanted to keep things compact so that the writing didn't run on too long. Nobody should be "married" to any particular phraseology, but at the same time we should try to use the most accurate language possible. If we need to add a glossary to define terms, that would be fine. "What say you?" B.K.S.J. (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BKSJ, I agree that the IT specialist can use whatever words he wants, but it is preferable in an encyclopedia that those words be accessible to laymen, if possible. My linguistic preferences are in no way sacrosanct, especially not in a nuanced area of philosophy, but I am aware of when a particular tone or set of word choices seems different than what I usually encounter--and for the purposes of editing I want to know if there's a new context that may need elucidating or whether other language would be more accessible. Also, I do think it's possible that language which might otherwise communicate better will not simply because it is unfamiliar to the reader; but that's a continual challenge in framing ideas.

I disagree that we can't "consider personalities" or other topics which are external to the literal theory. An encyclopedia can do both, using care to separate: ideas, from the their originators, from their adherents, from their reception, and from the criticism that any of those facets received. It might seem "unprofessional" to stray from the core content, but ideas are not created or propagated in a vacuum, and we don't do them harm or disrespect by appropriately writing their biography in full. Practically, if there's criticism, we represent and reference it; we don't "mud-sling" it.

I agree that "instance" fits here, though "work of art" is used to describe just about every kind of creative product, as well. For my tastes, instance seems to focus on the phenomena of art distinct from its producer (which may be fitting for aesthetics)... but that's probably just a matter of personal connotation. Incidentally, I did some googling and "instance of art" beats "work of art" 10 million over 7 million, with the first hits for "instance" coming from articles specifically about aesthetics. Who knew? It reminds me somewhat of an article about computing I edited a while ago, where they kept using this term "hardness" with an inline comment not to replace it with "difficulty", since it was an intentional term used in the industry. Seeing that there was persistent confusion, I just added the phrase: "hardness, a specific term used in the computing industry to measure difficulty", and it seemed cleared up to me. I don't think we need that here, but it's a good tool to bridge the gap if necessary.

To recap: I'd still like to clarify the link between opposites and contempt; I still think we could use minimal context or attribution for, "Opposites--such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace--may fight in a person's life, yet they work together in a successful instance of art"; I still find a contradiction between stating that AR has received both high praise and not as much praise as it deserves; and, "instance" seems like a good choice. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this thread, and I don't have any opinion on its substance. But I saw Google hits being offered as evdince, which caught my eye. Raw Google hits are pretty much useless. A more refined number is obtained by going to the end of the search. While they may report 6 or 10 million hits, the vast majority of those are meaningless. The "true" Google hit value for "instance of art" is about 389,[5] and the value for "work of art" is about 610.[6] Another detail I notice is that Aesthetic Realism websites appear on the first page of results for "instance of art", so even if it receives fewer hits overall it may be the more logical term to use in this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Secondary Sources about Aesthetic Realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources -- Here is a page containing reliable secondary sources about the philosophy Aesthetic Realism. This is a selection. Some are peer-reviewed articles in professional journals. Some are articles/reviews in mainstream periodicals. I will provide more. They provide references for the descriptions of Aesthetic Realism in the article, including the assertion that well known authorities for decades have recognized the preeminence of Eli Siegel's thought and poetry in the history of culture. B.K.S.J. (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling those. It would also help if you could identify those written by members of the movement. They are still usable as sources, but it's helpful to see which sources are sympathetic versus critical or neutral.   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories (For discussion, not provocation)

I noticed that some categories, including, most inclusively, Education, were added to the article. I'd like to discuss the inclusion of other categories and "See Also" Links. Some are uncontroversial, some are not. The most controversial ones rehash territory which we have not resolved, and I don't presume to simply include them without addressing the larger issues (or let them hang as a kind of guilt-by-category association). Nevertheless, the list is broadly construed to allow for an interested reader to approach a wide range of material, background information, and opposing opinions, and make up his or her own opinion.

Categories:

• Sociology of religion
• Philosophy of religion
• Religious conversion
• Religion and society
• Criticism of religion
• Opposition to religion
• Disengagement from religion
• New religious movement
• Cult
• Anti-cult organizations and individuals
• Researchers of cults and new religious movements
• Exit counselors
• Anti-cult terms and concepts

See Also:

• Sociological classifications of religious movements
• List of founders of religious traditions
• Minority religion
• Religion and homosexuality
• Opposition to cults and new religious movements
• List of cult and new religious movement researchers
• Cult of personality
• Criticism of religion
• Anthropology of religion
• Cult apologist
• Destructive cult
• Anti-cult movement
• Cult checklist
• Mind control
• Deprogramming
• Post-cult trauma
• Exit counseling

71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am greatly diappointed in the angle from which you are approaching this. Aesthetic Realism is not religion at all. None of these categories have any validity when applied to it. Religion is based on faith, is it not? Aesthetic Realism is social science, and is based on ascertainable (that is, intersubjective) fact. I will suggest some other specific categories soon, and perhaps you would like to comment on them. B.K.S.J. (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization. It says: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." And: "An article should be placed in all the existing categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So if there is verifiable information to support a category, and if that is a defining characteristic, then it should go in that category. Otherwise, not.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Legitimacy or Illegitimacy of Some Sources

As we editors work together to see which sentences in the article on Aesthetic Realism should stay, which should change, and which should be added, we need to be aware more keenly than ever which sentences are true and which are not. This is a simple criterion that every sincere encyclopedist can agree with.

Wikipedia differentiates between reliable secondary sources and ones that are not reliable. This implies that some sources may not be true. After all, what else can make a source unreliable? However, I don’t wish to belabor the obvious.

Point One.

In paragraph three of this article, there now is this phrase: “praise in several articles, professional journals.” It used to be “praise in articles, professional journals.“ Not to nitpick, “several” is the wrong word. It doesn’t convey the truth. “Several” means only a few: Webster’s says it means “more than one and less than many.” If we check the facts, asking "How many articles are there, really?" we find on the following four pages a great deal of writing (including hundreds, perhaps, of articles) about the Aesthetic Realism philosophy, written by authors who describe it as having a preeminent value for America and the world.

(1) Aesthetic Realism in the Press < http://www.aestheticrealism.net/index-press.html > (2) Poets, literary critics, scholars, and others comment on the importance of Eli Siegel's work in their own fields of expertise. This includes reviews in the NY Times and elsewhere. < http://www.counteringthelies.com/reviews-and-more.html > (3) Articles on about the Aesthetic Realism Teaching Method. < http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Education_link.htm > (4) Articles in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known < http://www.aestheticrealism.net/tro/sitemap.html > (5) Articles in a Wikipedia page of sources on Aesthetic Realism < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources >

There is surely some duplication among these, but the number is sufficient to show that the phrase “some articles” needs to be altered. Therefore I am removing the word “some.”

Point Two.

The two newpaper articles in which Aesthetic Realism is attacked – one attack in the New York Post and the other in the Baltimore Jewish Times -- are NOT reliable sources. And we should act accordingly as editors.

FIRST: As everyone knows, the New York Post is hostile to anything that represents economic or racial justice and we can rely in the Post to lie about them and make them look bad. Therefore we should not be surprised at what it wrote about Aesthetic Realism—in an article exhumed by Michael Bluejay from the last century and reprinted on his web pages. As a “reliable” source, the Post does not qualify.

Devorah Tarrow tells: “This tabloid is known also for attacking virulently whatever doesn't go along with its right-wing agenda, including unions and other progressive organizations and causes. (Again, what do the facts matter?) See < http://www.counteringthelies.com/Post-article-comment.html >

SECOND: The Baltimore Jewish Times article, also exhumed by Michael Bluejay, is a carefully constructed hatchet job that is riddled with cleverly concealed falsehoods and innuendoes. It is clear that the writer is impelled by malice. For more details see “From the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's Response to the Baltimore Jewish Times article, Aug. 27, 2003” – at < http://www.counteringthelies.com/appendix.htm >

The language and “factoids” used in both Post and Times articles are so biased, so POV, they would not qualilfy for an article in Wikipedia. It would be too ironic for them to be good enough to be designated “reliable sources”!

THIRD. We should not suppose that the lies about Aesthetic Realism online have no effect. For example, one lie on the Bluejay web pages got all the way to Amsterdam to the STORMFRONT.org website, a site run by Nazis, which links to Michaelbluejay.com. Perhaps later I’ll ask someone to translate the hate speech in Dutch that Mr. Bluejay unfortunately has encouraged with his distorted way of commenting on Aesthetic Realism. The Stormfront posting I refer to begins: ”De jood Eli Siegel, stichter van aestetic realism…” which means, “The Jew Eli Siegel, founder of Aesthetic Realism…” And here is the quote from Bluejay (I hasten to add, Bluejay is lying):

“Religiously the group is non-denominational but a large number of its members and leaders are Jewish, perhaps the majority of them, with names like Siegel, Koppelman, Blaustein, Shapiro, Fishman, Rosen, Weiner, Weiss, Reiss Kimmelman, Kestenbaum, Bernstein, and my birth surname, Freedman. The Jewish involvement in the group is so strong that JewishTimes did a story on the controversy surrounding AR. The group is also officially nonpartisan but their politics are far left, being highly critical of greed and profit in capitalist economics.”

< I cut and pasted this quotation from the stormfront URL: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1994796 >

Stormfront.org concludes that the information from Mr. Bluejay “is an important indication that Jews do have a hidden agenda and focus on the breaking of any opposition and criticism in order to achieve their goal.” Tell me, is this dangerous or what?

IN CONCLUSION:

To put it politely, both the articles -- Post and Times – are driven by deliberate malice against living individuals. Wikipedia has in the last year or so shown increased sensitivity toward malicious lies in the Wikipedia biographies of living individuals and wants to prevent them. This article is not a biography. But it still contains malicious lies and links to them. The false information in this article also should be eliminated for the same reason as it is eliminated in biographies: it damages reputations and is, plainly, cruel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.K.S.J. (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone is quoted in Stormfront isn't relevant. The Post and Times publications are reliable sources. If there's a feeling that they are biased or promoting a POV then we can attribute the views to them and let readers make up their own minds. I'd like to remind users that Wikipedia is not a battleground.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed to see the Post described as a reliable source. I can only think that you haven't actually seen a copy. Wikipedia's own article on the New York Post quotes this statement by the Columbia Journalism Review: "The New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil." In the same Wikipedia article are listed numerous examples of the Post's racism, distortion, and malevolence. Nathan43 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Post has been discussed at WP:RSN a couple of times, most recently in December. Despite its problems, it is considered a reliable source. Given the paucity of independent sources on this topic, we're not in a position to discard any lightly.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

rewriting the lead of the article.

The lead we have now, I'm afraid, is unclear and a little muddy. The principles of Aesthetic Realism don't come forth very clearly. And also, the history of the persons who have attacked it is not accurate enough. It seems to have gradually evolved by small increments from a much clearer lead that was written earlier, largely without discussing the particulars. I think too that the placing of opponents to students of Aesthetic Realism, who have even said they did not disagree with the philosophy, is not accurate enough. The one thing they attacked is social--not philosophic at all--making the ridiculous proposition that an authentic school and authentic students were deluded cultists. This means these so-called critics are trying to negotiate a fundamental contradition in what they are saying. (1) Nothing is wrong with the philosophy (meaning it is true) and (2) the people who think it's true are deluded.  !!!!????!!!!

Consequently, I'm taking the lead in revising the first paragraphs so that they accurately reflect reality, are TRUE sentences. I am using a few more references, so that the sourcing of ALL my writing is clear.

I do hope that whatever debate follows is civil. I am ready to answer any legitimate questions.

B.K.S.J. (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)