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

Request for comment - Pray the Gay Away

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

---

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

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

Regarding the redirect

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

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

Regarding the article lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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)
  • It seems very strange to note that conversion therapy is sometimes called "pray away the gay" and then immediately add that that is an incorrect term for it, since conversion therapy includes methods that have nothing to do with prayer. Actually, there is no evidence at all that "pray away the gay" is used as a term for conversion therapy per se as opposed to specifically religious methods of changing sexual orientation that do involve prayer. Which is why there is no reason it should be mentioned in the lead. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Maclean's uses "pray the gay away" as a term for conversion therapy[3]. So do PBS[4] and Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology[5]. The The San Francisco Chronicle states that "Practitioners often are religious, and gay rights groups have derisively characterized the therapy as an attempt to "pray away the gay." " [6] The Huffington Post states that "The American Psychological Association has repeatedly repudiated reparative or conversion therapy techniques (also known colloquially as "pray the gay away" techniques)"[7] Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This was removed

When I visited this article, the hatnote was still there but there's no explanation of the term in the article. I agree with previous commentators that while we're not a dictionary, it's inherently confusing to redirect a non obvious term to an article, and then provide no explanation of the relevance of the article you've redirected the reader to. And I don't think the term is quite obvious enough that it requires no explaination. Although it's been a while, I see no evidence to consensus above has changed. In other words, while I don't necessarily disagree with this editor [8] that there's no reason to mention Christian fundamentalists two times in the LEDE, i do think the removal of the term was wrong and have therefore reintroduced it [9]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lead

Right now, the lead paragraph is mostly a series of quotes from the American Psychiatric Association. I don't think that reads well. WP:LONGQUOTE says "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." According to MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph of the lead should define the topic and establish the context. I think that the lead paragraph should be rewritten to define the topic and establish the context, and that the quotes should be paraphrased and the quotes themselves hidden in the citations in the '|quote=' field. FurrySings (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The only (semi) long quote that I see is this 21 word quote:

"while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable".

It could possibly be written in a more concise manner. In my opinion, all of the other quotes are necessary, because there are editors who have argued repeatedly that we are misrepresenting sources. By using short quotes, that argument disappears. I don't believe that the current lead is overly difficult to comprehend, but it could probably use some polish. - MrX 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The 21-word quote is represented in full in a cite quote parameter, so it might be summarized rather than quoted in the intro. Its message should not be muted, however. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just for the first paragraph, which now says:

The American Psychiatric Association has condemned "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[7] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[7]

How about this:

The American Psychiatric Association has condemned and called unethical psychiatric treatment based on "the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder" or that the patient should change sexual orientation.[7][8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation.[7]

FurrySings (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadger, etc

I would like to ask MrX what, precisely, he sees as being the significance of Isidor Sadger and Felix Boehm? How exactly do you think information about these obscure figures will be of benefit to readers trying to understand conversion therapy? Despite the edit summary you used, I don't believe that either of them is in any way a "notable" figure for this field. Most literature on conversion therapy doesn't even mention them, so far as I know. I note that you did not restore the material about J. Vinchon, Sacha Nacht, and Daniel Lagache, which I removed earlier this month - why are Sadger and Boehm more worthy of mention than Vinchon, Nacht, or Lagache? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think discussing those people help our readers understand the history of conversion therapy, and that in turn helps set a context for understanding the contemporary views. Yes, I intentionally did not restore the other three because I agree that their historical roles were minimal. Both Sadger and Boehm (de.wiki) have articles.

How about if we shorten and combine some of these sections? I do think they are a little lengthy and do not need separate sections. - MrX 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You asserted that Sadger and Boehm were "notable figures" in this field; I'd like to see some actual evidence of that. I doubt very much that contemporary conversion therapists owe anything to either of them, and I think it's questionable that the material about them here will benefit readers. Including it may actually confuse matters, by exaggerating the importance of such figures. I would be all in favor of shortening the sections if you would agree to that, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadger here. If you read Isidor Isaak Sadger you will see that he was active in researching homosexuality cures and even influenced Freud to some extent. Boehm was the president of the German Psychoanalytic Assembly. His research on the causes and "cures" are well documented in secondary and tertiary sources (examples). I am not claiming that contemporary conversion therapists owe anything to these two, only that they merit inclusion in the article for historical context. While their research may be fringe by today's standards, they both seem to have been quite notable, at least in their own time. - MrX 02:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the historical context argument is dubious if these figures didn't meaningfully influence later developments in conversion therapy. The key question has to be whether literature on conversion therapy standardly mentions them, and the answer, so far as I know, is that it doesn't. For me, the ideal would still be to remove mention of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that your "influence" argument convinces me that this material should be removed any more than my "historical context" argument convinces you that it should be included. If there is no room for compromise then I guess we should wait for others to weigh in. - MrX 13:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other views would be helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Banning of the practice on minors

California and New Jersey have banned conversion therapy for minors. This does not apply to religious institutions. If I remember correctly, they have been upheld, so far. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it is relevant and important to include legal developments on this issue. I would appreciate that we try to remain neutral in comments in this public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.143 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research

I have removed the following passage, as original research:

'Nicolosi's "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" clarifies that Haldeman's interpretation of his work, cited above, is inaccurate; Nicolosi explains that some males are temperamentally more sensitive and esthetically oriented and can never be expected to act in a way that is stereotypically masculine. As Nicolosi says, "A gender-nonconforming boy CAN be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle--and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician--and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are 'who he is,' part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits." Nicolosi adds, "With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood."'

The citation given was page 48 of Nicolosi's book about preventing homosexuality. I happen to have a copy of that book. I have looked up the passage, and it does not support what appeared in the article. The relevant part of Nicolosi's book reads as follows:

'But make no mistake about this: A gender-nonconforming boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle - and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician - and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are "who he is", part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits. With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.'

That passage cannot be used as a criticism of Haldeman. It does not even mention Haldeman, or say anything about Haldeman's interpretation of Nicolosi's work. To use the passage to criticize Haldeman is unacceptable original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Transgender?

One thing I'm rather surprised is the lack of discussion, both in the article and on the talk page, about transgender conversion therapy. Looking through the archives, there's only one thread about it (here), which soon devolved into the COI-infighting by User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor that led to Sexology last year.

That said, there may be space to discuss trans conversion therapy, especially given the controversy regarding Kenneth Zucker's use of it and later appointment to DSM 5 working groups. I don't have references to hand at this exact moment in time (although they undoubtedly exist), but I think it would be prudent to have this discussion anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What is "transgender conversion therapy"? Are there sources that discuss it, using that term? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as transgender conversion therapy. There do exist bloggers and trans- activists who make claims, but it does not appear in the professional therapy literature (except as political/activist commentary). The idea is generally intended as an analogy to "conversation therapy" for homosexuality/heterosexuality, but does not exist in reality. The state of the science is that: (1) Gay men stay gay, and straight men stay straight, no matter what you do. (2) There have been many attempts—explicit and published in peer reviewed therapy journals—to change gay to straight, and none has met with any reasonable evidence of change. (3) For transgenderism, however, feelings of being in the wrongly sex'ed body are less stable: Roughly 80% of the pre-pubescent kids stop being transgender by puberty and instead identify as regular (cisgendered) gays/lesbians. (4) Before permitting sterilization (including castration) etc., Zucker and other therapists first attempt to help the kids be comfortable with their born sex until they are old enough to undergo the surgeries or they know which kids will remain in the 20% minority instead of growing into being gay/lesbian. Zucker's approach does indeed differ from the "surgery on demand for children" favoured by some activists, but calling it "conversation therapy" (etc.) is the political line, not the encyclopedic description.

2. I would recommend User:Sceptre apply great caution in this discussion: Making accusations of COI without evidence violates NPA. I was (repeatedly) accused of violating COI in the Sexology Arbcom case, but ArbCom found no such thing. ArbCom did, however, put this and other paraphilia-related topics under discretionary sanctions. So, again, I would recommend User:Sceptre apply great caution.

3. For anyone reading the Archive that User:Sceptre linked to, I was writing at that time (2008) as User:MarionTheLibrarian, before I started editing under my real name. I believe the discussion at that archive (including the input from the other editors) speaks for itself.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I added duplicate material

In [10]: "Reverted good faith edits by 135.0.167.2 (talk): Duplicates material already in the history section - Hooker and Bieber are discussed below."

Oh, come on, all the info in the section's lede are also found in it's subsections, but that's what the lede is for. Currently the lede only focuses on psychoanalysis as if it was the only player. If a lede should only mention non-duplicate information, rather than show a proportionate summary and impression, then what is a lede for? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article. The history section is already confused and cluttered, and I'm afraid your edit made it worse - which is why it was reverted. Feel free to open a thread about the history section on the article's talk page; it would be a more appropriate place to discuss matters than my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the lede of the history section to the bottom of the lead on the top of the article. I felt that's where it belongs anyways, but last time I was afraid of messing things up so just added to the section lead. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do things like that; it's not at all helpful. The "lede" of the history section should remain where it was; it was in the right place to begin with. The lead of the article certainly doesn't need expanding. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ha, was just seconds form pressing save. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not saving. If you want to make major changes to the article, please discuss them first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You did say, "It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article." Now, did you mean

A) the section ledes summarize only the sections, but only the article lead should summarize the whole article.

or

B) the section ledes should not summarize anything, (maybe be a transition, or be completely removed or only mention things which can't fit in any subsection), and only the article lead should summarize the article's important details.

I thought it was B, but it's getting gradually, ambiguous, and I just wanna check. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant B. Please be more careful in your edits: I have had to revert an edit you made that was presumably well-intentioned, but which misrepresented source material and made the article significantly less accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that edit (if you look closely) didn't change any meanings and moved things around, but that edit/revert is off topic and neither of us should care about it.

Ok, now that I'm clear you meant B, we both agree that the summary should go in the main lead. So I'll simply add the info about the APA there, as it's a fact of key importance to this article (I'm sure you did not contest this). The whole time, all I really wanted to do was mention the key fact about the APA in the summary, but simply wasn't clear where the summary of the history is, because if you look at the article, you have to admit it DID look like the summary of the history was the history sections lead. I don't really mind where the summary will be, I just read the article lead and history lead, found that it talked about so much psychoanalysis and other strange details, without making the basic idea clear (that psychiatry's main players first started an effort to "cure" homosexuality, and now learned it ain't no mental disease and efforts were disastrous). You may know that, I may know that, but if you look closely, someone skimming this article will get no such clue about the big picture. That was all I wanted to fix, not debate over where the summary should be. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)