Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Changed definition of conversion therapy

I have changed the definition of conversion therapy, because of what seems to be a difference of purpose between the statements on this issue by the American Psychological Association and that by the American Psychiatric Association. The first APA's statement seems clearly to offer a definition of conversion therapy, but the second APA's statement doesn't seem to be concerned with doing this. What it says is that 'the American Psychiatric Association opposes any 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 a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation'.

The "such as" part of that statement implies that there might be things that aren't conversion therapy that are still psychiatric treatment based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation, in which case this phenomneon, though it includes conversion therapy, cannot simply be the same thing. Born Gay (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

What is POV and NPOV on Wikipedia is defined by policies that include Verifiability, No Original Research, and due weight. Mish has stated above that she believes she can disregard these policies ("I do not need to justify this by sources - it just is.") because of common sense. It seems to me that the common sense page, which explicitly states that it is not policy or a guideline, is concerned with upholding the spirit of the policies, and does not give editors the right to ignore them when they see fit. I am also concerned that appealing to common sense in this way leaves us with no way of resolving disputes. Mish has told me not to remove the Neutrality disputed notice from the article, but if she has the right to ignore Wikipedia policies when it suits her (to add original research about Edmund Bergler, for example), I don't see why I don't also have this right. So I find it hard to believe that there is a reason why I shouldn't remove the NPOV notice at any time it suits me. I would like to ask other editors for their views on this. Does common sense give Mish the right to add original research to the article, or does it not? May I remove a NPOV notice added by an editor who appears not to accept the policies that define NPOV, or not? Born Gay (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no original research about Bergler. He published in the USA in English, not in Austria in German, in 1938 - the year after or the the year he moved there. He never published in German in Austria after he left his post in Vienna in 1937. Placing his work published in the USA in 1938 in Austria when he was no longer employed as an analyst would original research - placing him in the USA from 1938 sticks to the known facts. I have not ignored a single policy - I have tried to explain something in the talk page to you pointing out the need for common sense. You have twisted my words into my doing something I have not done, based on a comment I made to you here on the talk page - that is extremely bad faith. I have not stopped you putting in material backed up by sources - you have stopped me doing so. I have not developed synthesis or original research in this article, but it could be argued most of the history section is (in the conext of this article) original research based on one comment in the APA statement. You cannot remove the NPOV tag until you have addressed the issues in a way that you gain consensus to do so. As yet you do not have that consensus. you throw around accusations of incivility, when it is you who keeps making bad-faith accusations and alluding to motives when somebody stands up to your bullying dogmatism that is not securely founded in the literature. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You stated clearly that, "I do not need to justify this by sources - it just is." That is the exact opposite of what Verifiability states, namely, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Based on the fact that you stated something diametically opposed to the verifiability policy, I can only conclude that you do not understand or respect Wikipedia's content policies, the very same policies that you are inconsistently appealing to try to show that the article does not meet NPOV. If you don't accept the policies, why say I shouldn't remove the tag?

The original research you added about Bergler was firstly that he was "notable" rather than important, and secondly that he was the most important psychoanalytic theorist only in the United States, while the source supported neither of those things. I explained that to you, but you didn't seem to understand or care, just as you (still) don't seem to understand or care that it's seriously wrong to attribute opinions expressed only by one individual to a larger group of people without evidence that they accept them. That was original research, and it had to be removed. Your complaint that most of the history section is original research is without merit, and there's no consensus here that I shouldn't remove the tag. Born Gay (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bergler was important in the USA. He was not that important in the UK and some other countries. He was the most important in his time. But that makes him notable. If you want to be clear he was important in the USA, fine, but the way this was written made him out to be important period. That cannot be substantiated, in the way that Freud could be.

I do not need to justify in sources that an american National organisation is American - no. There is no need when the title is National Association of XYZ and that organisation is in the USA, because that is what 'National' means - it means it is a national organisation, not international. In the same way the APA is American - needs no source, because the clue is in the name, same with NARTH, you could say that the name is the source. It is not rocket science. If NARTH was in the UK, then it would be British, but it isn't, it is in the USA, so it is American. If something is International, it is usually reflected by having International in the name, although not having a country like America, or not having National in the name, can mean either - but National doens't mean International, so international orgainsations do not have National in their name - look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

• National: Of or having to do with a nation
• International: Of or having to do with more than one nation

Compared with the misrepresentation embedded within this page, and the lack of information about the subject, these points are completely trivial, to be honest. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Verifiability again. It doesn't matter what your (or my) personal opinions are regarding Bergler's relative importance in the US or UK. We base this on reliable sources. The source says he was the most important psychoanalytic theorist in the 1950s, and yes, that can be substantiated. Please see page 15 of The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, a book which, by the way, is extremely critical of Bergler and the other anti-gay shrinks. Regarding NARTH, its being an American organization or not was never the issue. The question is, is it right to add a qualifying statement saying that it is the most important organization only in the US? The answer has to be no, because the sources don't support that. The simple fact that it is an American organization does not mean that its influence can't extend internationally, and it would be Original Research to say otherwise. Born Gay (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As for there being misrepresentation embedded within this page, you've given no good reason to think that there is any. The APA is not the only reliable source that uses terms like "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" to apply to older approaches, including that of Freud. Jack Drescher has done this also, in Sexual Conversion Therapy, edited with Shidlo and Schroeder. If there are multiple reliable sources stating this, that settles the issue on Wiki. Personal opinions that the APA or Drescher are wrong don't matter here. Born Gay (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's a difference between citing that somebody argues that X Y and Z should be classed as conversion therapy, and making that claim the basis of an article which avoids talking about what conservative therapy today actually is, and ignored the religious aspects beyond a vried mention. To apply that claim as true for the whole article, turns it into a synthesis, which embeds imbalance and gives things are not central to what happens today undue weight in relation to what the topic is about today. It renders the majority of the article off-topic. But, having seen you engage with several contributors, I am aware that you are relatively impervious to criticism, so I am not wasting my time trying to exppain any more. Especially as you tend to argue with the things you don't agree with but ignore points you cannot dispute. I am not surprised, as I have seen this mode of disputation before - amongst the some of those cited in this article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are beside the point, and don't give an accurate assessment either of the article, or of what I've argued on the talk page. If you actually look at the article, you'll see that it gives several different definitions about/interpretations of conversion therapy, based on the fact that these have all appeared in reliable sources. No one of these views is the "basis of the article". Far from being "synthesis", this is a good example (imho) of how to handle situations when reliable sources disagree; we report all the main views.

The same remarks as ever apply - if you want to add material about what reliable sources say "conversion therapy today actually is", then do so, if it is in accord with the relevant Wikipedia content policies. Born Gay (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, a link to part of the Drescher article I mentioned can be found here [1]. Drescher writes, "Reparative therapy has come to generically define talking cures that claim to change an individual's homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one...the history of reparative therapies has become inexorably linked with that of psychoanalysis". Born Gay (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A neutral view

As the editor who removed this article's GA listing I'd like to make a few general points, hopefully to prevent the discussion here becoming too heated.

• It is not fair to suggest that the article now is self-evidently worse than the version which was originally listed as a GA. The reassesment was a routine one being carried out on all articles listed before August 2007, when the GA criteria were substantially added to. That version would be no more likely to be succussful in a GA nomination now than this one would.

• Some good points are being made on both sides, but I'm afraid that to me it seems like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. For me, the structure of the article, particularly its focus on developments in various countries simply doesn't work, and gives no sense at all of chronology, or that researchers do not work in isolation but tend to incorporate the ideas of others into their own. That such-and-such a psychotherapist/psychoanalyst/psychologist has used or advocated conversion therapy doesn't seem to me to be automatically worthy of note just because the psychotherapist/etc. him or herself is. This article ought to be focused on telling the story of conversion therapy as accurately and succinctly as is possible. It ought not to be attempting to provide complete coverage of the area; that's why we have references and further reading sections, for those interested in learning more about the subject. "Comprehensive" is not a synonym for "complete". It seems to me that this article is falling into the trap of confusing the two.

• I look at some sections and wonder whether the subject really warrants that number of words; Freud would be a good example. An important figure in the history of psychoanalysis certainly, but in the history of conversion therapy? I think this may well be an artefact of the article's present structure, which seems to make it overly difficult to maintain focus on conversion therapy.

• On a personal note I view the addition of tags to the head of an article as little short of vandalism, and as a demonstration of goodwill I'd ask the editor who added them to remove them, particularly as a productive discussion on the differences of opinion is already underway here.

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, done that. Thanks for your comments, which seem apposite. I would reiterate my comment that it would be of benefit to include some substance about what Conversion therapy (as practiced today) is in practice, as opposed to history of origins, theory, promotion or critique. It would also be nice to see some presentation of the claims that, and the arguments it is not, connected with religion in some way, as per balance and NOPV. I take the point about deckchairs on the Titanic, I hoped this article might have been salvageable before it sunk. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think Malleus for his reply. I respect the fact that you disagree with how I have organized the article, but your observations do not change my mind about anything fundamental. You write that, "For me, the structure of the article, particularly its focus on developments in various countries simply doesn't work, and gives no sense at all of chronology, or that researchers do not work in isolation but tend to incorporate the ideas of others into their own." I do not believe that the article could be written in a way that did not focus on developments in specific countries, and I think it would be utterly impossible to reorganize it in a purely chronological way. If anyone disputes that, then I'm welcome to listen to specific proposals as to how this task could be accomplished, but I'd be surprised if anyone offered any proposals that wouldn't create massive POV/Original Research issues.

(I do accept that parts of the article might be cut back, and may possibly do that. I have already removed a number of things that struck me as undue or too detailed).

Malleus's questioning whether Freud is an important figure in the history of conversion therapy (which goes back to his complaint in February this year that the quote from Freud didn't seem relevant) seems to me to reflect a basic misunderstanding of the issue. It is not true that someone has to describe himself or herself as a conversion therapist or say that he or she practices conversion therapy for the article to say that they do this. Reliable sources, including the American Psychiatric Association's position statement in addition to other things, define conversion therapy (and for that matter reparative therapy) in such a way that they do include Freud and other earlier figures, who never used either of those terms, which means that for the purposes of this article Freud indisputably is an important figure in the history of converison therapy. Whether the sources are right or not definitely is not the issue, and it isn't our task as editors to settle that. This has everything to do with Wikipedia's basic content policies and nothing to do with the article's structure. Born Gay (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but to take a brief comment by the APA like that and then apply that backwards historically in the way it has been here - where the detail on the history of psychotherapeutic approaches to homosexuality at a time when it was treated as a psychiatric condition per se exceeds any substance on contemporary conversion therapy treating homosexuality when it is no longer a psychiatric condition - that is original research. It is one thing commenting that the APA said this, it is another to construct a whole article on that premise. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We have been through this. The APA position statement is a reliable source, and would settle the issue by itself. Even if it didn't, and other sources were needed, they do exist (including Drescher in Sexual Conversion Therapy, which I'll find the exact page reference for if need be). They say essentially the same thing as the APA, and do so more explicitly. Yoshino also deals with Freud as part of the history of conversion therapy. Given that numerous reliable sources state this, there is little sense in saying that it needs to be qualified as only their view; it is definitely the main view, and can be presented as fact. If the various reliable sources apply the term "backwards historically", we need to respect that. If material about more contemporary kinds of conversion therapy needs to be added, then let us add it, but the fact that there might not be enough of it here is not original research. Born Gay (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is original research or synthesis to include all the detail before and after Freud or not, given it makes up 60-70% of the article, it definitely represents undue weight compared to the cursory treatment of aspects of contemporary issues (already mentioned). And when you say 'we', I take it you men you have been through this, directed at me, because you seem to be the only one I can see pushing this interpretation of a couple of sources as being the basis for most of this article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the undue weight problem is that the older approaches are properly described, then I disagree. They obviously warrant description, and it poses no problem to have them here (or none that you have properly explained). Rather than complain about a lack of information about contemporary methods, it would be best to simply add it, in a way that respects the relevant content policies. I don't know what other editors think about this, but the policies (and the sources) are clear. Born Gay (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I told you already, I don't have time to play games. I'm not adding a thing here while you keep reverting it. You will have to do it. Until you do, it is undue weight. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the material you added was helpful, but other parts definitely were not. More helpful material would be welcome, but I will keep reverting material you add if it fails due weight and verifiability. Material that consists of opinions expressed by Wayne Besen, but which attributes them to other people instead of properly attributing them to him, or stuff about what NARTH thinks about an obscure Islamic website, does not belong here. Born Gay (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who Wayne Besen is - to me it is just a claim made in a respected national newspaper. The same goes for the Islamic group's relationship with NARTH, it was documented in a respected national newspaper, therefore it was significant in the UK. That is more-or-less the extent of reporting on these matters outside the gay press, which I specifically avoided - by excluding it you fail to reflect the UK perspective, by exclduing it you give undue weight to academic and medical perspectives that are not reflective of the information here that is available to most people. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Besen is a well known gay activist. Since you've made definite claims about the difference between what is important in the United States and what is important in the United Kingdom, it is more than a little surprising that you wouldn't know that Besen is considered important in the United States (there's an article by him in Drescher and Zucker's Ex-Gay Research, a book you have cited several times). You could have found out who he was simply by looking him up on Wikipedia. The Guardian article by Decca Aitkenhead that you used as a source [2] mentions him by name and makes clear who he is ("gay activist and author of Anything But Straight: Unmasking The Scandals And Lies Behind The Ex-Gay Myth"), so obviously you would know perfectly well who he was if you read the source you used. You'd also know that the article does not say that the views he expressed are held by anyone except him.

I see you used the edit summary [3], 'I don't care who he is.' Why, if you do not care who he is, would you say that you do not know? How can one 'not care' who a person is, if you actually don't know who they are? Don't know and don't care aren't the same thing. The relevant point is that it is unethical to suggest that an entire group of people hold certain opinions simply because one individual who is a member of that group happens to hold such views. Born Gay (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Guardian article that mentions IslamOnline [4] that shows that NARTH's view of it has any relevance to conversion therapy in general, as opposed specifically to NARTH as an organization, where it may have some relevance. This is obviously the wrong article for that material. Born Gay (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Benjiboi (from his talk page)

Benjiboi commented on his talk page, "The proponents of conversion therapy are almost exclusively tied to and supported by religious institutions. This should be quite clear in the lede and instead it is muddled with a list of researchers that doesn't make much sense IMHO." I place my response here, to keep further controversy off his talk page. I think it is probably an overstatement to say that proponents of conversion therapy are almost exclusively tied to or supported by religious institutions (not an overstatement by much, but still an overstatement). There is a reliable source (the article by Kenji Yoshino) stating that "The most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations", and that is in the lead. I have made it slightly clearer. I do not very much care whether the lead contains a list of people who advocated or practiced conversion therapy, and only put it there as a makeshift measure. I welcome alternative suggestions as to what the lead might contain; I now agree with Benjiboi that it needs major improvement. Born Gay (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bergler material needs adjusting

The article said that Bergler, "believed that tolerance was wrong because this would not lead the homosexual to awareness, advocating persecution as the means to seeking, and obtaining, a cure for the condition." I am not sure that this is necessarily wrong, but it is written in a way that makes it seem to contradict what at least one reliable source (Lewes) says about Bergler. Lewes says on page 155 of The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, that Bergler "did not oppose" the movement to decriminalize consensual homosexual sex, but that he was indifferent to to it, which certainly isn't the impression one would get from reading what was said about him in the article. Maybe both of these claims are true in some sense, but I would like the claim I removed left out of the article until that can be clarified. Born Gay (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

When sources conflict, you need to reflect both. There are around twenty references to Lewes already, which seems disproportionate, and making this article weighted strongly by one or two sources. Other legitimate sources only strengthen the article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been through the Terry source, and edited Bergler to reflect the source more accurately. Bergler published in opposition to Kinsey. In his earlier writing Bergler was not far from Freud in not placing too much hope on curing homosexuality. Kinsey, and the homosexual emancipation movement that drew on his work, seems to have been a problem for Bergler, and it was in response to this that he set about opposing the idea that homosexuality was a normal human sexual variation, framing it as perversion in neurotic masochistic individuals who were damaged as a result of their childhood relationships with parents. Initially he problematised what we would today call homophobic people for feeding the neurotic masochism of homoosexuals, as it added to their collection of injustices; however, he changed in this view, and located the blame for this on homosexuals themselves, coming to see them as provoking 'homophobic' reactions in order to feed their masochism and add to the list of injustices they had endured. It was a corollary of this view that homosexual advocates, like Kinsey, made matters worse for homosexuals, because they 'glorified' homosexuality (although this is self-contradictory in relation to his analysis of masochism), when what was needed was the oppression that would drive people into seeking treatment, and thus therapy. All apart from the last sentence can be verified as being in Terry, while the last sentence as I have stated it is alluded to there, and drawn from the comments she makes, but not with the specificity with which I have explained it - which is why I have refrained from replacing it in the way I phrased it before; I no longer have Bergler's book, but am looking through my papers to see if I made a copy of this, or noted it, somewhere when I read him - it may take a while. Everything in the text as it stands is verfiable in Terry, and she has written one of the most complete and widely available histories in this area. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewes is an obviously useful source; the number of references is not relevant so far as I know. Policies are what matter, not personal opinion. I'll look at the article in a moment, and comment on what you've done. Born Gay (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The information you added is much too detailed and more appropriate to Bergler's biography than to this article. In many cases, the relevance specifically to conversion therapy is not clear. This is a problem of due weight again. It needs cutting back. A further problem is that in some cases the information, although not exactly wrong, is presented in a somewhat misleading way. For instance, from the sentence, "Bergler based his own theories on analysis of the novels of literary figures known to be homosexual (e.g., Oscar Wilde, Hermann Melville)", readers wouldn't know that this applies to the work Bergler did after 1942 and more especially his reaction against Kinsey (see Terry pages 309 to 310). What you added does not perfectly reflect what Terry wrote; the sentence where she discusses this reads, "His assertions were back by little more than tautological statements and eccentric methods, including 'clinical analyses' of such literary figures as Herman Melville, Tennessee Williams, Oscar Wilde, and Marcel Proust." So even if this level of detail were justified (and it clearly isn't), the material would still need adjusting. It's not true that Bergler based his theories only on his analyses of gay writers. Born Gay (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, while the focus on Bergler before 1950 does not need to be documented in any detail, as it clearly states that he was the most important person working in this field in the 1950s, it deserves as much weight as somebody like Freud (who was not the most important person in his time, as Ellis and Hirschfeld were also around). In discussing Bergler in the 1950s, it should be fairly clear that this is not applying to his work before 1942 - and as his rection to Kinsey is discussed, the context is given. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bergler was the most important theorist in the 1950s, that does suggest that his previous work was worth describing. However, we have to be sure that this article focuses on the main subject. Many of the details you added had little or no real relevance to conversion therapy. Bergler certainly does not deserve as much detail as Freud, since he is historically a much less important writer. By the way, regarding the word "gay", your argument that it shouldn't be used to describe Bergler's patients because he wouldn't have used it is irrelevant unless you are going to go through this article and systematically replace "gay" with "homosexual." I don't agree that that change should be made, and I think most other editors wouldn't either. Born Gay (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can justify one approach for 'homophobic', a word that was not in currency in the 1950's, and yet use 'gay', which applied from the 1960's on. This seems inconsistent. Whether most editors have an issue with 'homosexual' or not is a moot point - nobody has said as much in relation to this article have they? This was the term that was used when it was a classified as a medical disorder, and the basis for Bergler's treatment was that homosexuality was a sickness that people could be cured of. He was completely opposed to the notion that this was a valid identity, connotations of which are bound up with the word 'gay'. What is clear from what I have inserted about Bergler is that while he may not have been as important as Freud in terms of psychotherapy, his legacy in treating homosexuality was greater - because it helped shape popular understanding in a particular way that has persisted through to reparative therapy. The same cannot be said of Freud, because he did not invest much hope in changing sexual orientation, and never made the claims that Bergler did. In the context of 1950s USA and after, Bergler is arguably more important in the context of this article. The theory and approach described for reparative therapy seems to owe quite a debt to Bergler, along with exaggerated claims of efficacy. What has been inserted about the 1950s shows a clear change in emphasis in Berglers theory and approach - ans so while what preceded this, it is not as significant for this article as the situation during the time when he was the most important and influential analyst of homosexuality. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They are different terms, and the article can deal with different terms differently. "Gay" is currently the accepted term for a same-sex attracted person, and consensus, I think you will find, is to apply to the term retroactively. It is not likely that there is any consensus for doing so with "homophobic", and in any case it would be absurd. That word is just a way of saying how nasty anti-gay people are. I am sure they are nasty, but pointing that out with ahistorical, judgmental language is unnecessary, foolish, and not how an encyclopedia should be written. Keep it matter of fact. Born Gay (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that your recent change from "gay" to "homosexual" (which I've reverted) made matters worse by adding original research, which is forbidden by policy, and something I've already requested that you not do. For instance, you wrote that "Later editions of Psychopathia Sexualis included an increased number of autobiographies by people diagnosed as homosexual who made it clear that they did not wish to change their sexual orientation." Where did the "diagnosed as homosexual" part come from? It's certainly not in the source. Likewise with Freud, where you wrote, "Freud as inhibitions of normal sexual development, although he denied that this meant that people he regarded as homosexual must be abnormal in other aspects of their lives." Again, what is the "regarded as homosexual" part doing there? It's irrelevant, and distorts Freud's meaning. Born Gay (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So did the former - Freud and Krafft-Ebing did not disgnose people as being 'gay'. You should use the terms they used - if they did not use homosexual, then use the term they used, but they did not treat people who were gay. Most of Krafft-Ebing's subjects were inmates in asylums - because they were seen as insane, or criminally insane. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion already. I do not agree. Do not try to make this change without consensus. Oh, and please stop adding original research to the article. I've explained to you that you made things worse by adding original research, but you went right ahead and added it again. That's unacceptable. Born Gay (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not restore original research, I reverted back to the amendment of the original research which refers to people treated for homosexuality before the 1960s as 'gay', when this does not feature in the writing before the 1960s, and then amending the two references you highlighted as 'homosexual people'. Krafft-Ebing used a variety of terms for people he trawled the lunatic asylums for, and ideally you should should those terms. Freud would have been more likely to describe people using 'inversion' than homosexuality. You need to go back to the sources and verify what terms were actually used by these authors to esnure accuracy. 'Gay' is misleading, inaccurate, and unverifiable from the original sources. if you do not amend this, I will go through the original sources and replace the reference to 'gay people' with the terms the subjects used. Accuracy is non-negotiable. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did restore original research. I explained that above. You stated in the article that Krafft-Ebing received letters from people who had been "diagnosed as homosexual." That's wrong, and it's not in the source. You restored your unacceptable original research while edit warring with me over the gay versus homosexual issue, and simply ignored the problem when I tried to draw your attention to it. Stop it. WP:MOS states that, "the name most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself; Wikipedia should use them too." The most accepted common term for same-sex attracted people is gay. You need to wait for consensus before making changes like changing "gay" to "homosexual". Born Gay (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I was in the process of editing that when you reverted it - so you prevented me editing the reversion to reflect your comments. I can see now that I will have to tackle the inaccuracies one section at a time. I have now corrected Freud, who used 'homosexual' or 'invert' (albeit in translation) - I have corrected Hirscheld and added the more important source omitted from the text, and clarified Krafft-Ebing so that the cases where he refers to people as homosexual or lesbian is made explicit (again, this is in translation - but 'gay' is not supported in any of them). There was no 'gay righst movement' in germany pre-WWII, there were a variety of movements, including Ulrich's Urnings, nationalistic homosexual groups, and what Hirschfeld was involved in, which was closer to modern campaigns for homosexual equality that the gay rights movement. I am not edit-warring - I am correcting errors that reflect a POV about the use of the word 'gay' before it was currency. So far you have not shown me any guidelines that Wikipedia should avoid using common disagnostic descriptions in their historical context because you don't like it. You are edit warring and disrupting my ability to ensure legitimate edits are made. This is evidenced by your reverting an edit while I was in the middle of amending it reflect your comment here. You should wait until I have finished the editing before you simply revert it, especially when it is because it happens to be something you don't like. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have confirmed what I am doing is correct - these people did not call themselves 'gay', but usually used the same terms those treating them used - if you can establish other terms these people and groups used, then I am happy for you to amend them accordingly. I have no issue with this - but just because people today identify as gay or lesbian, I see no reason why that is a reason to apply this usage to people and groups that did not. that is a form of ideological colonialism, and your interpretation of that MOS is selective. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand why 'homosexual' is seen as objectionable to gay people. It is because of the clinical connotations that arise from it being used in a way that focuses on sexual activity which was at one time treated as a pathology. In this context - where clinicians and analysts were dealing with 'homosexuality' (as detailed throughout the text), then it is entirely appropriate to use the term 'homosexual', because that is how these clinicians and analysts described their subjects. I don't personally have any issues about this, but I take your point about modern usage, and respect that. Whatever I might think about the use is irrelevant. In the UK, one of the most successful groups was called 'The Campaign for Homosexual Equality' - and although it is a translation, Hirschfeld described himself as homosexual. There is much less evidence to substantiate calling people 'gay' historically, especially in a piece that focuses on attempts to treat them. They were not being treated or discussed because they said they were gay, but because they engaged in what were considered as homosexual activities. Gay is an identity, homosexuality was criminalised and then pathologised. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond further to your arguments at this time. I've made my position clear. You do not have consensus for this change, and until and unless you get consensus (which you almost certainly won't) you should not make the change. Born Gay (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the entry made on Bergler, as this contained one of the few historic references to lesbianism in the article, and addresses the current article's emphasis on male homosexuality. I also reverted the edits made without consensus in changing the usage of homosexual that reflected the source to gay. Terry uses 'homosexual', not gay, as did Bergler. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The material you added about lesbianism doesn't have anything directly to do with converison therapy. Try adding something about lesbianism that actually does relate properly to the subject of the article. Lack of consensus does not mean that you get to force through these changes. It means we go back to the older version, and wait for further discussion. You behaviour is unacceptable and has become seriously disruptive. Born Gay (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

90% of the history section doesn't relate to conversion therapy. Bergler obviously does relate, because his work influenced Socarides and others who followed him, and he developed an approach that has been drawn on both in theory and practice. Apart from you and I, nobody is discussing this. You are failing to follow Wiki guidelines on accuracy, Terry does not use the word gay, she sues the word 'homosexual', and as an associate professor in women's studies, I would expect her to be fully aware of the issues involved in this - certainly better than you seem to. It is wrong for you to insist on imposing your POV all through this article, to the extent that you only permit selective use of sources, not allowing them to be included accurately, and excluding a section of the community affected from the history of the topic. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the obvious sarcasm and incivility from your response. Before you start complaining, check the policies. It is allowed to edit other people's comments for incivility. WP:CIVIL says, "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page." I removed the obvious trolling part of your comments (anything said simply to provoke an angry reaction from someone qualifies). The rest of your comments aren't really worth responding to, as they are vague and unsubstantiated. Stop the edit warring and place a request for comment if you want to make such changes. Born Gay (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! calling you sweetheart was not trolling, although I can see how you might see it as patronising - sorry, it wasn't meant in an uncivil way. Perhaps it is used in a different way in your culture, here it is a term of endearment, and used to be quite common amongst gay people - the only people I tend to call sweetheart are my partner and our dog. I think I understand. You cannot respond to my points, so you make out they aren't worth responding to and call me a troll, that's OK, I understand. Some people at NWU do that. Not sure why you ask me to discuss things here, when you don't. I'll try and leave this article alone, because you seem to have trouble working together on this. Seriously, nobody was treated for being gay when homosexuality was classed as a psychological disorder, they were being treated for being homosexual, all the books I have read say this. Once homosexuality was removed from DSM, then things changed. I have read the books, and I've known people it happened to. I even experienced some of it myself. Some of what happened to me wasn't because people thought I was gay, but because they thought I was homosexual. The books agree, honest. It doesn't matter what we say today, or what we would want today - that is what happened. They stuck electrodes on people's temples, and fried their brains because they were seen as being homosexual, not gay. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific fact sheet

This fact sheet contains a scientific fact sheet with lots of footnotes. Nice to add lots of info from fact sheet. Check out the footnotes, excellent data. Kleinbell (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's from NARTH. It almost certainly isn't appropriate, kindly don't add it. Born Gay (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think Narth is not appropriate source? Its sources are scientific and based on pro-gay writers. Kleinbell (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NARTH is a fringe organization, and doesn't count as a reliable source per the relevant policies. That is not in serious dispute here. Please review the policies. Born Gay (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing of substance there about the article topic, beyond a couple of statements along the lines of 'the APA says it doesn't work and is harmful - we don't agree'. This is already covered in the article - 99% of the 'fact sheet' makes no mention about conversion therapy, but is a rant dressed up in pseudo-scientific language. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)