Talk:Conversion therapy

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

"pray away the gay"

Someone is trying to insert a mention of the fact that conversion therapy is "derided by critics as pray away the gay" in the lead. I'm going to keep on removing that, because Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia and not a dumping ground for every random trivial fact that might interest someone. There is quite enough scientific criticism of conversion therapy in the lead - there's no need for silly, vulgar, and totally unscientific criticisms of it. Hebradaeum (talk)

It is absolutely NOT trivia. In fact, it is arguably the most common term for this practice. I suspect that a large number of our readers know this as "pray away the gay" and don't actually known that they call it conversion therapy - the reason is because the term conversion therapy says absolutely nothing about what it actually tries to do, so the descriptive (even if insulting) term is better known. When I was trying to find this article, I actually search for "pray the gay away", and was stuck with a article on a TV episode that has the title (which, by the way, is about conversion therapy). Very common terms like this belong in the lede - it is in no way "trivia".

You have no evidence at all that it's the most common term. So stop adding it. Hebradaeum (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My two-pence, is it belongs in the article, but not in the lead as per undue-weight or my interpretation of. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A Google search shows that this term is very common: (https://www.google.com/search?q=pray+away+the+gay&aq=f&oq=pray+away+the+gay&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) For example, this ABCNews article (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/02/pray-away-the-gay/) says "pray away the gay" first, and conversion therapy second. This article (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UGodqJjA_nh) doesn't even mention the term Conversion Therapy. So, evidence is pretty strong that this is a very common term. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to base article content on Google searches. The fact is that "pray away the gay" is not a scientific term, and it doesn't belong in a serious article (oh, and ABCNews is not a scientific source). This is not the "Conversion therapy in popular culture" article. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason "Pray the gay away" should redirect here. It should redirect instead to the episode of the TV program actually called "Pray the gay away". DUH! Hebradaeum (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The TV episode was named after the idea that one could pray away the gay, an euphemism for Conversion therapy. Pray away the gay is correctly aimed at this article not the TV episode named after the euphemism. Insomesia (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How would you know what the TV episode was named after, or that those who named it believed "pray away the gay" meant the same thing as conversion therapy? Even if it were true that the Pray away the gay TV episode was named after what its producers believed was a term for conversion therapy, that still wouldn't be a good reason for redirecting "pray away the gay" here. Common sense suggests that people searching for "pray away the gay" will be looking for the TV episode. I don't see any evidence to the contrary at all. Hebradaeum (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, "pray away the gay" isn't a "euphemism", as you wrongly suggest. It's a slang expression. Hebradaeum (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you expect all criticisms to be scientific? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't. But it's reasonable for an article in what claims to be a serious encyclopedia to focus on the scientific criticisms of conversion therapy, and not on the way conversion therapy has been ridiculed in popular culture. Giving the popular culture stuff equally status with scientific criticism does rather imply that scientific criticism isn't really needed, which is an unfortunate kind of message. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment - Pray the Gay Away

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

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

Regarding the redirect

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

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

Regarding the article lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Include: Commonly recognized reference term for conversion therapy. WP is to inform. Including the term aids finding the article . Simple.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For the sake of this discussion, I'm treating "pray away the gay" and "pray the gay away" as identical. These phrases are similar enough to get identical treatment. Only one would require mention in the article, since the other would be obvious. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] The phrase "pray away the gay" is apparently widely used, and thus the term should be mentioned in the article. Should it be boldface in the first sentence? No, it doesn't appear to be an official synonym, but instead is more of a colloquial or slang alternative. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the Lead section, in 2nd or 3rd paragraph, but not bold in the 1st sentence. --Noleander (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface As per Noleander. The term is in common use but it is not an exact synonym or a proper technical term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface As per previous editors. However the article should identify the possible bias, something like "...and derided by critics as pray the gay away..." as per Ego White Tray or "also known as pray the gay away in popular culture" as per В и к и. The article should also mention that prayer is not the only treatment included in this therapy. - Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Conversion therapy

The lead of this article states that, " "Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") is pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation." This convoluted definition of conversion therapy appears to be the invention of a Wikipedia editor. There are some sources that call conversion therapy pseudo-scientific, some that say it aims to change sexual orientation, some that say it purports to chance sexual orientation, but not one that defines it as "pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation". The definition violates basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:NOR (no original research) and WP:SYNTH. It amounts in fact to a form of POV pushing. Since numerous different definitions of conversion therapy exist in reliable sources, the sensible thing to do would be to pick one of them, and drop silly, made-up definitions such as the one currently used in this article.

I can understand why someone might think it was a good idea for Wikipedia to have its very own definition of conversion therapy, but please consider the sort of problems it creates. If you insist that conversion therapy is therapy that "purports" to change sexual orientation, would a therapist who simply claimed that his therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation but made no claims that it actually achieves this in practice be practicing conversion therapy or not? Under the current definition used in the article, I suppose the answer to that question would have to be no. Isn't it obvious, then, that the definition is unreasonable and confusing? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pick a source, any source - or any dozen.[3] Please note this is not a Google search, this is scholarly articles listing (via Google). KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hebradaeum, this seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLUE. We probably have a hundred sources on this article that calls it pseudoscience and a hundred sources they say it attempts to change sexual orientation. This is not a case of original synthesis, this is a short summary of what hundreds of sources say. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Not one single source says that "Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") is pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation." A Wikipedia editor made that up. It's POV, and a perfect example of synthesis of different sources. I note that you absolutely ignore my argument about how misleading and unhelpful it is to add "purports" to the definition of conversion therapy. What makes me think I won't get a meaningful response? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's POV, what point of view is being endorsed? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, the APA says they are promoted to change sexual orientation. Jeffry Ford says it purports to change it. International Society of Psychiatric and Medical Health Nurses says it's aimed at eliminating homosexual desires. Elizabeth Hish describes it as methods to treat and cure individuals of homosexual proclivities. Douglas Haldeman doesn't cleanly define the term, but makes it clear he's discussion attempts to change sexual orientation. Based only on the sources cited for the first sentence, it's clear that saying the therapy tries to change sexual orientation is strongly backed by sources (what exact wording to use is being discussed below). All of the sources also say that proponents of conversion therapy distort science, and Hish and Haldeman even titled their articles "The Pseudoscience of Conversion Therapy". So, the sources also strongly support the pseudoscience claim. And that's just the five sources attached to the first sentence. Calling it a pseudoscience that tries to change sexual orientation is not at all original synthesis, since all of these articles say that in slightly different words. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Both views should be represented. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The exact words of the lead are, "Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") is pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation." Synthesis? Yes, since no source actually says this. If the APA say "aims" rather than "purports", that's (presumably) because they're well aware that conversion therapists don't, in fact, always or even generally claim that their therapy actually succeeds in effecting change of someone's sexual orientation. The "purports" part is just plain wrong, even if Jeffrey Ford does say that. You should read Weinrich's review of Nicolosi's book, something you obviously haven't done. As you don't seem to be interested in portraying conversion therapy in a neutral and accurate way, or even in discussing this subject properly, I refuse to discuss anything with you any further. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Our definition accurately summarizes what those five sources describe. You seem to be implying that we must quote a source exactly. This is inherently ludicrous and has no bearing on any Wikipedia policy or guideline ever written. Could you specifically state what is in our definition that isn't in the sources? Pseudoscience is there - trying the change sexual orientation is there. What are we adding, exactly? Knowing what we're adding that the sources don't say could allow us to refine this definition. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia's definition, not used anywhere except on Wikipedia, twists the intention of those sources, and misrepresents them (whether deliberately or through simple ignorance is not important). The American Psychological Association's definition - therapy that aims to change sexual orientation - is clear and precise. It includes no implication that conversion therapists claim that conversion therapy actually is effective, because the APA must know full well that conversion therapists generally are responsible enough to admit that there is no guarantee that their therapy will automatically be effective in any given case. Adding "purports" implies that conversion therapists claim that conversion therapy does actually achieve its goals, which is untrue. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Purports

I've agreed with the removal, but I'd actually prefer rewording to outright removal. I think the way it was worded it could be misread as that CT is actually effective. I have, unfortunately, no ideas at the present time for better verbiage and open the floor to suggestions. FWIW, if consensus is to keep the previous "purports" verbiage, I will not quibble. I do not have that strong an objection to it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sources use "purpots". For example, ref 5 http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=2002-04977-010.--В и к и T 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think my preferred word would be "claims", as in "...a therapy that claims to change sexual orientation." This makes it clear that it is only what it claims to do, without implying in any way that it actually works. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I like "claims." KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's seriously misleading and inaccurate. Conversion therapists (including Joseph Nicolosi) are usually careful to say simply that their therapy aims at changing sexual orientation, and don't guarantee that it will automatically be effective in any given case, which is what "purports" and "claims" both imply. See James Weinrich's review of one of Nicolosi's books: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812731?uid=3738776&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101432891121, which covers this usefully. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing this point. The common sense thing to do would be to use the definition employed by the American Psychological Association ("therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation"), which is simple, straightforward, and neutral, but I don't expect to see it happen. Too many editors here seem to have no interest in describing this subject neutrally. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "claims" is the best word here, too. That avoids any implication that it "works". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote above? Conversion therapists don't generally "claim" that conversion therapy "works", if what that means is that it 100% changes someone's sexual orientation. They don't even claim it's necessarily even partially effective in any given case. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Claims to do something and claims to always do something are two completely different things. You sure seem to enjoy the strawman argument, since a claim to do something has never meant a 100% guarantee before. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the review of Nicolosi's book? I doubt it, because had you done so, you'd have noticed that Nicolosi doesn't claim ever to have accomplished total change of someone's sexual orientation ("As the latest in a long list of books which offer therapy to men who wish to change a homosexual orientation to heterosexual, it sets another precedent in that the author is apparently the first to admit that this change is not possible"). As you obviously have no interest in approaching this subject neutrally or accurately, I have no interest in discussing this matter with you any further. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that if we restore the content replacing "purports" with claims" the sentence will read "...aims and claims..." and that's a little too Dr Seuss sounding. We need to split those somehow. I'm ok with covering the claims in a later sentence. We could add "claims have been made..." but that's not particularly good phrasing. Ideas? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's illogical and foolish in either version. Obviously if something "claimed" to do something, doing it would be it's objective. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute - isn't changing sexual orientation the objective of conversion therapy? Maybe I don't understand your comment. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it telling that you avoided responding to my comments above, where I pointed to a review that notes that conversion therapists acknowledge that their therapy isn't necessarily effective in changing sexual orientation. Obviously, this fact means that the "purports" part of the arbitrary definition of conversion therapy Wikipedia is using is just plain wrong. That you and other politically correct Wikipedia editors just don't care about this doesn't come as a great surprise to me. Your lack of interest in depicting conversion therapy accurately was why I discontinued this discussion weeks ago, and I make these comments now against my better judgment. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The missing section

This article is missing a big component of conversion therapy - the cultural attitudes and response. No article on placenta would be complete without mentioning that some parents bury it and plant a tree over it after the baby is born, no article on heart is complete without mentioning as believed to be a center of emotion, etc. For conversion therapy, there are entire fictional works on it, and this deserves some discussion. Off the top of my head, But I'm a Cheerleader is a film entirely about conversion therapy, and I've been told that Lady Gaga's Born this Way is in a large part a response to it. These deserve mention. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV

This article has been, and continues to be, blatantly unbalanced and POV--filled with unencyclopedic and pejorative terminology and almost hostile to the subject of the article. The "pray away the gay" redirect apparently received consensus, but it is absurd. The very first sentence of the lede uses the word "pseudo-scientific." Advocates are described as "fundamentalist" and "right-wing." And, most importantly, much of the article is devoted to critical comments made about conversion therapy by individuals and organizations that oppose it, while very little time is spent on the individuals and organizations that practice and support it. There are more examples, but I will stop there. I have attempted to tag the article and to make certain changes, but was rapidly reverted. There is no excuse for any editor who is operating in good faith to try to justify the tone of this article. It is completely unworthy of the encyclopedia--but the POV-pushers will probably make sure that it stays that way. Oh well. I tried. 184.74.22.184 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It is pseudoscience, that why the word is there. There isn't a single scientific organization on Earth that regards conversion therapy as valid science. The advocates are almost always fundamentalists of some kind. Since no scientific or social group considers homosexuality a disorder or a hazard, the only opposition is from those with a religious objection. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Who gets to decide what is considered a scientific group? The people who are doing the therapy are typically licensed and have studied both counselling and psychology. Why is it that their credentials suddenly don't count. The way to make this article NPOV is to present the therapy in the terms that those conducting it are using, with appropriate references to their position papers and publications, and include a section that discusses the criticism from other perspectives. The fact that someone calls it pseudo-science does not make it so, nor does the fact that someone calls it science. Our job as ENCYCLOPEDIA editors is not to make judgement call son what is pseudoscience or not... rather we are here to report what experts have said. Some people who would qualify as experts have called this a science, others have called it a pseudo-science. That is what the article should reflect. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as an example of birthers, we don't say that some people think Obama was born in Hawaii, we says that he was born in Hawaii. We don't say that some people think planes were flown into buildings on 9-11, we say the planes were flown into buildings (per 9/11 Truth movement). For the same reason, we don't say that some people call it pseudoscience, we simply call it pseudoscience. A real science is called that even by those who don't practice it, scientists who disagree with string theory still consider it science. Here, the only people calling it science are proponents, and even some of them don't claim it actually works. If we imply in any way that this is valid science, we've let the fringe viewpoint take over. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the birthers article is a great example of what I would expect. It doesn't make a critical statement about the various theories until the "Commentary and criticism" section, rather it neutrally presents what those holding the view state (without endorsing or denying the claims). It doesn't label those who hold it as "fundamentalists" or "right-wing" or anything like that. It simply says "This is what some people have theorized" with sources pointing to the sources that support what people have said. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more relevant examples: Scientific racism, MMR vaccine controversy, Lunar effect, and Cryptozoology. Scientific racism and cryptozoology both explicitly say pseudoscience in the first sentence, MMR says scientific misconduct, so only Lunar effect doesn't have the term (and it probably should). And if the people believing in conversion are fundamentalists and right-wing (which they are), we should say that, otherwise we are biased in favor of conversion therapy. All of the claims that you think are biased are very well sourced. Find me a left-wing group that endorses conversion therapy and we can talk about that right-wing thing. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have identified 4 other articles that probably have POV issues. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is - and this is, probably more than anything else, what's caused some to perceive Wikipedia as liberally biased - that there's a certain line you have to draw beyond which you simply discount certain points of view. Yes, definitely we should not be biased in describing those points of view; but a fundamental truth in the pursuit of summarizing human knowledge is that there are some points of view you just have to say are incorrect. Obviously you don't say it with a lot of evidence to back you up, but that's what we have in this case. It's like when someone calls into an NPR show and says something that's crazy, or incorrect to the point of risking slander, and the host just has to say "No, nope, that's not true." So this article has an obligation to describe the views of the gay conversion movement objectively, just as the Flat Earth theory article does. But it most definitely does not have an obligation to present their views as remotely accurate. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is deeply stupid to describe conversion therapy as pseudo-science. Deeply stupid. You would describe something as pseudo-science only if there were no chance of it ever accomplishing its goals - like a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons in principle, based on the known laws of physics, why it's not possible to build a perpetual motion machine, so it's fair to call it pseudo-science. In contrast, there is no reason in principle why it would necessarily be impossible to develop a method to change sexual orientation. Even if no method to date is effective, that obviously doesn't show that no effective method will ever be possible. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)