Talk:Aversion therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Effectiveness[edit]

This article definitely needs something saying how effective aversion therapy is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.85.252 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2006‎

Aversion therapy has had almost a century of use, during which it has proven itself remarkably ineffective. Although, this article is remarkably in need of cleanup. -Seth Mahoney 21:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC}

Cleanup[edit]

I'm adding the cleanup tag for the following reasons:

1. The article doesn't go into much detail on what aversion therapy is, how it is supposed to work, what methods are used, etc.
2. "One patient said of aversion therapy" - what patient? Who said this? Where is it documented?

-Seth Mahoney 21:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sexually Deviant Youth[edit]

What?! In developed world countries? References? Rsynnott 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Don't forget the Simpsons episode "No Disgrace Like Home" (the one where they all go to group therapy and shock each other) - the therapist specfically refers to aversion therapy while introducing the procedure.--4.244.27.33 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Homosexuality[edit]

While much of the article focuses on homosexuality, it is not an LGBT issue as aversion therapy has only been used to attempt to convert gay men. Aversion therapy is much wider than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eedo Bee (talkcontribs) 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I think you mean that "aversion therapy has not only been used to attempt to convert gay men". Even though this is correct, it doesn't mean that this article doesn't fall within the LGBT project since attempted conversion of gay men and women using aversion therapy is common and a significant issue for the gay community. An article does not have to be only about the subject of a project to legitimately fall within that project's scope. Best, Gwernol 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Judge Rotenberg Center[edit]

Please see this report about a facility, which we in Europe regards as the standard treatment center of North America for Aspergers illnesses.

Is it not Aversion therapy, they are using? Covergaard 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More a punishment paradign jcautilli2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.151.139 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality[edit]

Second paragraph in 'Aversion therapy and homosexuality' reads... As of 2006, aversion therapy, when used to treat homosexuality, is...

don't you think we should get rid of the word treat... homosexuality isn't a disease!!! Luke0406 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Luke, you are entirely correct. Feel free to change as you deem necessary. Doc Tropics 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ant-abuse & aversion therapy[edit]

Certainly on the first pass, ant-abuse is not a form of aversion therapy (it is rule governed behavior) but if the lapse occurs, then it quickly becomes aversion therapy (paring of the alcohol with vomiting). Some would argue it even goes as far as being a punishment paradign, since the vomiting is contingent on the drinking behavior. jcautilli2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.151.139 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2008‎

Removed ex-gay movement category[edit]

I removed the ex-gay movement category. Please, before anyone decides to restore it, consider that aversion therapy is used for many things that have nothing to do with homosexuality, and that individual aversion therapists don't necessarily take any position on homosexuality. Note that psychoanalysis is not placed in the ex-gay movement category, despite the fact that it too has sometimes been used to try to change homosexuality, so there is a serious issue of consistency and logic here. Skoojal (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the sexual orientation and medicine category. The reason is essentially the same as the one given above - aversion therapy has nothing necessarily to do with sexual orientation and medicine (and again, note that psychoanalysis does not have this category, although the case for it would be about the same - so don't simply restore the category to this article while leaving psychoanalysis untouched). Skoojal (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added Category:Conversion therapy. The article devotes considerable space to the use of this form of therapy to convert sexual orientation, so it clearly belongs. There is no rule that 100% of a topic must fall within a category for it to be categorized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See above regarding my comments on psychoanalysis. You'd face a long struggle if you wanted to categorize psychoanalysis that way, which, by your own logic, you should. If a category cannot be applied consistently and sensibly, it should not be used. As far as I know, the rules regarding categories are unclear on the point you mention - they don't say whether something that partially overlaps with a category can be placed within it or not. Further discussion, or even a request for comment, might be appropriate here. Skoojal (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at WP:CAT, which you directed me to on my talk page. It 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. 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." This supports my stance, not yours. Skoojal (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The bulk of this article concerns conversion therapy. To use your examples above, John Goodman is in both "People from New Orleans, Louisiana" and "People from St. Louis County, Missouri". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
'categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article' is what WP:CAT says. Again, that supports my position, not yours. Skoojal (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to restore this, at least until the CFD is completed. Once that's settled we can decide what to do next. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You restored the category with the vague comment that it is "relevant." That doesn't amount to a response to my comments above. WP:CAT supports my stance on this matter, not yours. If you aren't open to discussion about that, then there is certainly a problem here. I may place a request for comment, or take this to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Skoojal (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You keep making threats to take things to the ANI, though I don't understand what you intend to say there. If you feel that filing a complaint is the best way to get consensus on this issue then go ahead. All I've done is ask that you not depopulate the category while the CfD is pending. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If, in my view, you are throwing your weight around as an admin and trying to use that to settle this issue (as in, "I'm an admin and you're not, so therefore I'm right and you're wrong"), I will have little choice but to take this to ANI. It would be a last resort, however. I've asked several other editors for input, and may ask others. You asked me not to remove articles from the category; I fully intend to do that when I see it as appropriate. The fundamental problem is that it's just not clear when this category should be used and when it shouldn't; the category page does not clarify that. If I take this to ANI, pointing out that you created a category that, because of its vagueness, can be and is being misused would be part of what I'd say.Skoojal (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please provide the diff in which I made that statement. I don't recall ever saying anything like it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not accusing you of making any such statement. I am simply saying that if that turns out to be your attitude (I don't know yet whether it is or not), then as a last resort I am going to have to try taking this to ANI. Skoojal (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If I ever say something like that you're welcome to scold me for it. I don't think I ever have in my time on Wikipedia. I'd urge you again to assume good faith and to focus on the editors not the editing. This is a collaborative project and a combative approach is not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a relevant category. The guideline in WP:CAT for adding an article to a category 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? The answer to both questions is clearly yes.
Aversion Therapy is a form of Conversion Therapy certainly works as a formulation which accurately categorizes a substantial portion of the article, and does not preclude aversion therapy being other things as well in other contexts. The guideline to categorize the topic, not the article is making a subject/format distinction, which isn't relevant here.--Trystan (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The sentence you quote is not the entire guideline. It's simply one of the numerous questions that has to be considered, according to the guideline. Also, it's untrue that Aversion therapy is a form of Conversion therapy. It may be sometimes used as Conversion therapy, but that's a different matter. Please consider that if anything that's ever used to try to change homosexuality counts as Conversion therapy, then possibly most forms of psychotherapy would have to be categorized that way, including everything from Psychoanalysis to obscure things like EMDR (which is discussed as a possible treatment for homosexuality here [1]). If the category were applied that broadly it would loose all meaning. Skoojal (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the Electric Shock Therapy be updated by saying how dangerous it is to patients. Regarding the fact that every time a person experiences an electric shock they are exposed to non-ionising radiation, exposing patients to Cancer's, Leukaemia's, Neurological diseases like Motor Neuron's Disease here in the UK but called by other names in the US. I would edit this page myself but as you can see from my nick I'm an electric shock survivor but I'm also a qualified teacher and electrical engineer. I have brain injury and many other illnesses and suffer from memory loss and lost most grammar skills, so I rely on other people, however I have been researching the subject of electric shocks and EMF's for the past 8 years. if you need information, I can point you in the right direction to find the info. Shocksurvivor (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal and ethical challenges to the use of aversive procedures[edit]

I added an NPOV tag here because it contains the following opinions:

  • "However, it is important for regulatory bodies to discuss the use of aversives and punishment techniques."
  • "While in some cases the means is jusified by the end effect, behavior analysts need to remember that their overaching goal is to do no harm[3]"

see WP:NPOV for how to fix this. Benwing (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)