Jump to content

Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Issues for the Medial Cabal

Here are several issues which we have debated and have not come to a conclusion on.

Ex-gay section Most sources do not identify ex-gay ministries as a form of conversion therapy. BG found one source that did, which was very negative. He insists that his source is the only source that can be used because it is the only one that specifically refers to it as conversion therapy. I think that either the ex-gay ministries should be discussed or they should not. If they are going to be discussed, information from mainstream medical organizations which refer to it as Sexual orientation change efforts instead of conversion therapy should be able to be used. My argument is that the concept is the same from both sources, just the two sources use a different name. The other problem is that BG's source is over 15 years old. I think it dishonest to the reader to rely so heavily on such an old document and not mention more modern interpretations just because they use a different word for the same concept.
Self-determination: Every major psychological institution has talked about the client's right to self-determination when talking about conversion therapy. That is the main reason why it is still legal. I think this should be discussed, and should be in the lead, yet BG insists it is more important to discuss the effects it has on the gay community at large, rather than those who seek conversion therapy. I think the focus is off.
Alternative therapies: I personally am not a fan of conversion therapy. I think there are many flaws with it. Almost every time a major psychological institution has spoken on the issue, they say what should be done instead. They say a counselor should instead discuss with the client the reasons for the change, and help the client reach a solution that would be compatible with their sexual identity and their religious identity, even if that means changing one or another. It isn't conversion therapy, but it is a related therapy, and is what the institutions talk about. It is the accepted way to deal with a client in comes in seeking conversion therapy. I think just spending so much time on why it does not work, and why a client should not seek it out, but not discuss what the client should do instead is misleading.
Conversion therapist perspective: Conversion therapists still operate under APA licenses. Many of them publish in APA papers and present research at APA conferences, yet BG says that they are fringe groups, and their views should not be presented here, even though this is about conversino therapy.
Worldwide view This focuses mainly in the US and Europe. India practices conversion therapy, under the WHO diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation. This article takes the APA view as authoritative, and only mentions the WHO view in passing. The problem is that WHO does not specifically say what type of therapy can be used to treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation. I think this can be explained rather than ignored. China also allows treatment for ego-dystonic sexual orientation.
Antecdotal evidence of cures The APA says that antecdotal evidence of cures are counterbalanced by evidence of harm, but this counterbalance is not reflected in the article. Several reliable media source have documented these antecdotal evidences of cures.

These are just a few starting points that we can discuss with the Medial Cabal. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this Wikipedia article for some time. Are these issues already before the Mediation Cabal? Where is that section of Wikipedia located? I have strong personal opinions about this topic, but I agree that it should be a good encyclopedic article that describes conversion therapy while also admitting mainstream Western views about this therapy technique.--Boweneer (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for not staying with this the past week; I've been sick and had limited time. Are you determined to go cabal? Why Cabal and not Committee? Have you considered, now that you have identified and listed the specific areas of dispute, that you might be able to work this out among yourselves, or with the help of Rfcs, if you all focus on tackling one at a time? Does anyone want my input on any of this, or have you determined that attempting to work this out here with my help is not going to be a workable proposition? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
My opinion as someone interested in this topic but who has not edited is this; I've watched the conversations going back and forth on the talk page, and it seems that the editors here are committed to their viewpoints. As a relatively new editor, I've gone from desiring my POV to be present in certain articles like this, to being more interested in good encyclopedic articles. I think my personal breakthrough was realizing that Wikipedia should be a good source of information, and the opinions will always be available elsewhere.--Boweneer (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion, KillerChihuahua. We have tried to come to a conclusion, but as Boweneer said, we are pretty committed to our viewpoints. I think a 3rd person point of view would be very much appreciated. I've tried to summarize both my point and the other points. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether there is a need for mediation or not would depend upon how great a risk of continued edit warring there is here. I'd like to believe it wasn't necessary, but it may well be, considering that Joshuajohanson has failed to respond to the arguments I've made. BG talk 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
JJ has summed up the problems really well. Although I have a point of view that includes experience of faith based SOCE, my desire is to see a good article (according to wikipedia policy) that represents all the various traditions and modes of inquiry that have addressed the problem of unwanted same-sex attraction. Currently, the article does not achieve this. If it should, lets get help so it does. If this article isn't the right place for this, lets create a page that is: Sexual orientation change efforts. JJ keeps responding to BG, but he refuses to acknowledge it.Hyper3 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that JoshuaJohnson has made a good summary of what this article should be, but my concern is that as someone who went through reparative therapy in a religious setting, I just don't see that acknowledging that strong link between religion and reparative therapy is a bad thing. Do studies show that non-religious people pursue these sorts of therapies? All of the back and forth gets confusing to me; I guess too that I'm not too concerned about opposing opinion being found elsewhere on the internet, so if it's missing from this article, that's fine. However, I do think it would be best to clearly state that results of studies about the effectiveness of this therapy technique are mixed at best. The reader should be able to draw their own conclusions.--Boweneer (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The positions of professional associations are clear, that the studies are poor, and that they regard it as potentially harmful and having limited success (based on the best available evidence), and only a minority support it. That is important if we are letting people draw their own conclusions. I tend to agree about the religious connection, but that religious imperatives to change sexual orientation stretch beyond conversion therapy, which is presented as a secular therapy, but a therapy that those with religious motives have tried to utilise because faith alone has proven incapable of altering sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems to me that having such partisan primary and secondary sources makes the job of editing an article even harder. Is it acceptable for the pro-conversion therapy/reparative therapy editors to have criticism by mainstream media and organizations directly next to the descriptions of these therapies and the studies? It seems that has been a problem in the past. How can that problem be overcome with so few sources and so few neutral sources on this subject?--Boweneer (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the folks editing here who want to see SOCE better represented have all been arguing for a fuller article. Because the area is so polarised, it will be necessary to present both aspects, with due weight and so on. Mish is not correct when saying that faith alone has proven incapable of altering sexual orientation. Such faith in the ability of social sciences to capture the true picture is touching, however! Different communities use different approaches to problem solving and giving an account of their success. This page does not reflect the variety fully. It certainly does not show respect for different positions. Hyper3 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand your position, the trouble is, as I am learning in trying to add references to much less contentious articles than this, it can pretty hard to find support for statements in articles. Even the sources that are found seem to be read differently by the two sides on this issue. Though I have a POV on this topic, I do think it is important that the article:
1) List all techniques of conversion therapy.
2) List who supports and who opposes conversion therapy.
3) List studies. Note which are peer-reviewed. Outline the sample size, results, and any criticisms of the study by either side of the issue.
Question: I'd be curious if there have been any studies of religious vs. non-religious motivation to undergo conversion therapy. My reason is that the "pro" side of this article would be better served if the religious component is just out there for everyone to see, which is my personal opinion, but I don't know if it is actually supported by sources or not.--Boweneer (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3 said, "Actually the folks editing here who want to see SOCE better represented have all been arguing for a fuller article." I'm afraid that what you regard as a fuller article, I see as the article drifting away from its main subject, change methods that have been defined specifically as conversion therapy. The only way the article can be made NPOV is keeping it strictly focused on those methods. BG talk 21:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BornGay, are you stating that something like ex-gay ministries shouldn't be listed here, or some of the other more outre techniques?--Boweneer (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ex-gay ministries have definitely been defined as conversion therapy, so information about them certainly does belong here, provided that it is properly sourced and meets due weight. The stuff that should be excluded, in my view, includes more esoteric change methods like Aesthetic Realism and Bioenergetics, neither of which seems to have been defined as conversion therapy by reliable sources. I believe there has been a passing reference to Aesthetic Realism as conversion therapy in one source, but I still doubt that it should be here; probably doesn't meet due weight. BG talk 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Bowener, I think you mistakenly apply the term partisan. There are proponents, there are opponents, and there are neutral sources. The neutral sources are those used in the lead - the APAs etc. This is the problem, people are approaching the professional associations as if they are opponents, they are not - the opponents are LGBT groups. The APAs etc. simply find no evidence to commend it - and they should know, because they spent much of the last century trying to change sexual orientation. It would be as inappropriate to cite LGBT critics as it would Ex-gay proponents, but citing professional associations is not partisan, that is neutral where medical issues are concerned. Mish (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And it would be neutral to correctly portray the APA statements, including the ones supporting self-determination and the benefits of ex-gay groups such as "For instance, participants reported benefits from mutual support groups, both sexual-minority-affirming and ex-gay groups. These groups counteracted and buffered minority stress, marginalization, and isolation." They did not mention having sex with clients as a technique to change sexual orientation. Everything I am arguing can be found in mainstream medical sources. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson's ideas about how to portay the organizations statements about self-determination do not seem correct to me - and notice that he isn't going into details. The new report doesn't discuss ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, so it is not really relevant. Joshuajohanson writes, "They did not mention having sex with clients as a technique to change sexual orientation." No, but Haldeman did. He is clear that some ex-gay leaders had gay sex with their clients to help them overcome their desire for gay sex. Not a terribly logical approach, of course, but that is what happened. BG talk 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead needs to be a summary. So, there is a limit to how much needs to be there. Yes, the APA's position that trying to change sexual orientation is a waste of time and potentially harmful needs to be there, no, comments about ex-gays doesn't, nor does the support side - it is micro-detail. That can go elsewhere in the article if necessary, and I don't object to that, as long as it is brief, just as NARTH should not be in the lead, but could go elsewhere (it is partisan). I don't suppose the DVD 'But I'm a Cheerleader' (1999) [1] can go in anywhere can it? It is great movie and I've not tried to get anything into this article in a long time - it is as on-topic as anything else we've discussed lately. Maybe a section 'Conversion therapy in popular culture'? Mish (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson, the news reports about the APA statement doesn't seem to support what you are stating. What I got out of the news reports was that conversion therapy is not an approved technique, and should be discouraged. Furthermore, I got that the APA is encouraging therapists to help find accepting religious congregations. I stumbled on this page [2] which seem to mirror some of the arguments that Joshuajohanson and Hyper3 make about reservations they have with the APA's report. I had a pretty strong reaction to that blog entry, but I think it shows how passionate some proponents are.
I guess the question is, should the article present these views in some format? If it is all criticism of conversion therapy, which seems to be what the mainstream secondary sources confirm, what is to be done?
So, Mish, are you saying that the article should stick with just neutral statements about this topic? Does the APA itself count as a primary or secondary source?--Boweneer (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You have raised some interesting points. The research they had carried out, that would be primary I guess, but their policy statements I'm not so sure. We could use newspaper reports, as this was heavily reported on, but as you say, they give a very different impression for the one JJ wants to paint. The guidelines do suggest that this is why secondary sources are preferred, because of the potential for primary sources to be misinterpreted (cherry-picked). The media reports appear closer to the policy than the research report, and the reliable media sources (national broadsheet) would be more accurate than our interpretations of primary sources. If the admin who was watching this discussion is still around, maybe he could advise. I think that you have made a very important point here, and it may be something we have overlooked. However, I would say that medical articles do tend to refer to medical papers (as do academic articles), and while those could be considered primary sources, they are often the only sources available for some more obscure topics (You rarely see reports about phenomenology in the media these days, sadly, at least not in English speaking countries). Mish (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the medical organizations are in general very negative towards conversion therapy, but not as negative as this article portrays. All I'm trying to do is accurately display what the mainstream medical organizations have said, which I listed out above. Boweneer, what I quoted was from the APA reports, and is an accurate description of what the report says. I know you have a point of view, we all do, but I would suggest you read the report for yourself. That needs to be done in addition to 2nd hand sources, but even the 2nd hand sources that you mention do not reflect what is stated in this article. Read for example the WSJ report, which ran with the title "A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions". [3] The fact of the matter is that mainstream medical organizations have no problem with people who want to reject their same-sex attractions and provide therapy to help them do so. Boweneer, if you think I am misrepresenting something, feel free to bring it up. I believe what I am trying to add is neutral and accurately reflects with mainstream medical viewpoint. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Joshuajohanson, I don't think I will ever agree with you that what you want in the article is a mainstream viewpoint BUT I think it is very important to have in this article. I hope you can see the difference. I feel that proponents are a minority viewpoint, but one that should be reflected in this article. I think it's clear that there ARE counselors/therapists AND individuals who are proponents and find this kind of therapy effective.

In essence, I've come to believe that for some people, this therapy is the right thing for them to do. AGAIN, that is completely POV, just as my other strong feelings about this therapy are. I just feel that like other very controversial topics, feelings are going to be very strong and the editors motivated to edit this article just aren't going to be very neutral. I'm OK with that. We are all passionate about this subject.

I read the article that you linke Joshuajohanson, and it seems pretty benign to me. I hesitate to articulate my thoughts here, but I'll just say that I think the concern for me and other gays is that this sort of "love the gay, hate the sin" approach could lead right back to where we were recently, and empower those we feel are religious to attack us. However, those who want to *not* identify as gay but can accept that they have same-sex attractions are the ones that seem to be caught in the middle here. So I suppose that is why I speak up now after reading the back and forth on the talk page. I don't personally agree with this form of therapy, and I feel that it could be used as a weapon against me, but there are folks on the other side of the debate that could be hurt by *not* acknowledging them.

I hope that makes sense. Again, the trouble is, so much of what I have written is completely POV, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and probably isn't supported by any sources.--Boweneer (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Boweneer - thanks for your sane comments; although you may not welcome agreement from a conservative Christian! The British environment is different to the American situation, especially politically, as British Christians do not have much political power (although if we did, I expect we would make just as much of a mess, unfortunately). Politics (which I read as being a major motivation for your thoughts) should be about making as much space as possible for difference, and pragmatically dealing with conflict. An encyclopaedia should note how different communities approach a given subject, and note the variety of comments and critiques that emerge, both inter-communally and inner-communally. This article will never be useful until all parties agree that the liberal humanist approach is not the level playing field upon which other views play the game, but is in itself a player. Hence the APA is not the final arbiter, but an expression of still another tradition, or mode of inquiry. Hyper3 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
@ Boweener. I did try to say some time ago that there needs to be a distinction drawn between the findings of the report, and the APA position statement that accompanied the report. What the report represents is the findings of the literature review carried out for the APA. What the position statement represents is the APA's position on what is discussed in the report. To take the report and present those findings as the APA's views is WP:OR, the position statement represents their views. This is why you are seeing a discrepancy between the information in the report and the media reports about the APA's position statement. The media reports, while they may refer to specific findings here and there, focus on the APA's position statement. That is what we need to focus on, what the media states about the APA's position, and the APA's position itself. To extrapolate the findings of the report as anything other than a report on the findings of a literature review carried out on behalf of the APA (such as 'the APA says this, that and the other') is WP:OR. I agree that brief coverage of the report should be included somewhere, but not in the lead, and treated cautiously as is advised for primary sources. The APA position is less problematic, because that is available as a primary source and as a secondary source through the media. That is the authoritative position of one the main appropriate professional bodies.
@ Hyper3. The APA is one of the arbiters, because this is about professional practice, and they are one of the professional associations who exercise authority in this field. Unless you can find a similar professional association with the level of authority that the APA has, then that is the authority. Mish (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
@Mish. I still think the findings of the report are of use. So far, BG has been able to block the findings from being used on this page because it isn't specifically about Conversion therapy, block it from being used on Sexual orientation change efforts page, because some report indirectly implies that it might be the same things as conversion therapy, and block it from the Homosexuality and psychology page because there is already a whole article on the conversion therapy page (which he said you agreed with him on?). I know you don't like the findings found in the APA report, but can't you see that it is wrong to completely block it from Wikipedia just because you don't like it? I am willing to work with you if you want, and can work on rephrasing it so that it doesn't appear to be a statement by the APA, but please see reason. This is an important report and should be allowed on Wikipedia somewhere. Where do you think it should go? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
@ JJ. First, you should not misrepresent other editors' words or intentions, which does not WP:AGF. I have no problem with the findings - they are quite clear that there is no evidence whether SOCE works, amongst other things. However, their significance only relates as evidence that lead to their latest position statement. Focusing on the findings, because they are a primary source, opens them to misuse. That is why I said that something brief needs to be said in the article, but not the lead, and not in any detail. What is important for the lead is drawn from their authoritative position as expressed in the position statement, and reported in secondary sources. This is spelled out here: WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I am sure that Ex-gay groups can be supportive - and that is great - but it has little to do with CT. Psychiatric patients can be very supportive to one another (even if only in supporting each others' paranoid fantasies), but it has little to do with how you treat schizophrenia. I could say that you only want the findings in because you interpret some of them as supporting your POV - but I won't do that. I don't care whether what it says is true or not; even if people could effect a change in somebody else's sexual orientation, I would not be concerned about that - because I wouldn't see the point. What is important, though, is how the APA view this - and they don't reckon it is good enough, when they weigh up how many people might change, and how many may be harmed in the process. You may not like that, but that is what they have said, and they recommend their members not misrepresent this by saying they can change sexual orientation, and that they should avoid it. They are the authority, and they have made it quite clear (in their position statement) that religious groups have no expertise in psychological matters like these, and that they need to stick with what they do know about, and they accept that what they do may even help gay and lesbian people deal with unwanted homosexual attractions - and if not they might consider changing their religious affiliation. But, that is nothing to do with conversion therapy. Mish (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I still think the findings from the APA task force should be included. I would prefer them to go on a separate page that dealt with SOCE issues in general, but until that happens I think they should be included here. I don't disagree with most of what you say, but you need to represent all of what the APA said. You can't just cherry-pick what you want and exclude the rest. The findings from the task force were significant. If you think some of it has been misinterpreted, then let's discuss it, but it needs to be included. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Anyhow, I definitely think all of this argument shows that we need to go to the Medial Cabal. I don't know exactly how this works, but it seems there has already been a case started [Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-04/Conversion_therapy]. I don't know if we have to go there and agree to it or what, but I definitely think some arbitration should be done. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't get that link to work. In any case, I think you are probably right.--Boweneer (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, you complained that, "BG has been able to block the findings from being used on this page because it isn't specifically about Conversion therapy, block it from being used on Sexual orientation change efforts page, because some report indirectly implies that it might be the same things as conversion therapy, and block it from the Homosexuality and psychology page because there is already a whole article on the conversion therapy page (which he said you agreed with him on?)." I'm not doing anything to stop you from using the new APA report on Sexual orientation change efforts. True, I said I'd revert if you turned it into an article, but on reconsideration, I probably wouldn't do that without a consensus. If you turn it into an article, a sufficient number of other editors will likely realize that that is inappropriate and it will be turned back into a redirect, even if I'm not the one to do the revert. The fact that there is a whole article on conversion therapy is an excellent reason for not including a section on it in Homosexuality and psychology, and I note your absolute failure, and perhaps inability, to respond to that objection. BG talk 01:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

JJ, this won't work if you use rhetorical devices like referring to 'cherry picking' when what I am saying is that the findings of a review are not the same as a position statement. That you persist in this type of misrepresentation is verging on WP:UNCIVIL, especially when I have said that it needs to be addressed in some way, but not as the position of the APA, but as findings. On reflection, if this were part of the medicine project (which it could justifiably be, under psychiatry), then it would pass as a secondary source, as it is a review of primary literature. However, if this became part of medicine, the criteria would become even more stringent that are now, and you might find people arguing that only the authoritative views would be acceptable, and that anything about religious groups and non-mainstream groups excluded completely. So, the issue is this. When you talk about what the APA says, you have to stick to the position statement, and when you talk about the task force findings, you say the APA task force found that 'XYZ'. Otherwise you will mislead people into thinking that the APA said XYZ happened, rather than they found that XYZ may have happened - which would be inaccurate and WP:OR, because they state quite clearly their position that they don't believe there is enough evidence for XYZ, and the best evidence there is suggests it doesn't. OK? Is that so hard? Mish (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your reconsideration BG. I am confident that other editors will not find it inappropriate and will go ahead with the new page. Mish, from now on I will make sure that my suggestions make a clear distinction from the task force and the APA. I made sure the SOCE page makes that distinction. I think the creation of that page will help solve many disagreements, but not all. I will return to this page once the new page is created. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just as confident of the contrary, sufficiently confident that I'm not going to rush to revert what you propose to do there. BG talk 23:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments about sourcing

Joshuajohanson commented above, "He insists that his source is the only source that can be used because it is the only one that specifically refers to it as conversion therapy." I think it is preferrable, and involves less risk of original research, to use only sources that specifically identify ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy in this article. That does not mean that I am absolutely opposed to using other kinds of sources as well. It simply means that we need to be very cautious and to think carefully about what we are doing. In the past, I have opposed using the new APA report to source claims about ex-gay ministries here, but I am open to further discussion on this issue. The new APA report does not specifically state that SOCE and conversion therapy are the same thing, but I believe that there is one other statement they've made which does imply that they are the same - I'm currently looking for it. If that is the case, then perhaps the new APA report should be used to source claims about ex-gay ministries. It's a very complicated issue. BG 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to one of Joshuajohanson's other comments: "Every major psychological institution has talked about the client's right to self-determination when talking about conversion therapy. That is the main reason why it is still legal. I think this should be discussed, and should be in the lead..." I believe you are misinterpreting what they say about that. The references to self-determination I've seen are somewhat vague and general. They aren't necessarily statements saying that people have the right to choose conversion therapy, though that is how Joshuajohanson has insisted on presenting them. BG 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the APA have in fact implied that SOCE = conversion therapy, then that's an excellent reason why Sexual orientation change efforts should not be turned into an article with a different focus. BG 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

BG, please use a signature with a link. Its either a policy or a guideline, probably a guideline, but still appreciated by anyone who is attempting to work with you. Your sig should link, at minimum, to your talk page. Just use the four tildes, or click on the sig button above the edit box. Thanks much.
regarding your long post, you are now arguing offtopic, so I am creating another thread. The thread you placed this in is about the larger issue of how shall we resolve our numerous disputes. Your view is welcome and wanted there, regarding what approach you think will resolve the disputes most effectively. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of my comments were a direct reply to Joshuajohanson's comments in the thread above, so I'm not sure how they are off-topic. BG talk 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Because that thread is him listing some of what he sees as the areas of dispute, and the discussion is about where and how to best resolve them. You skipped the "what is the best approach" part and went straight into arguing the issues. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I'll keep the issues separate. The source I was thinking of is this. It implies that reparative therapy and SOCE are in fact the same thing, though it doesn't say that quite directly (the APA has implied in the past that reparative therapy = conversion therapy). BG talk 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
My issue is not on whether ex-gay groups are conversion therapy or not. My issue is the inconsistency. Either ex-gay groups are conversion therapy or they are not. You can't only use one source because it classifies them as conversion therapy, but remove all other references that do not refer to them as conversion therapy. Either they are or they are not. I personally do not think they are, because they don't claim to offer therapy, but if we do decide they are conversion therapy, then they are conversion therapy and we should allow all sources to talk about them, whether or not they specifically use the term conversion therapy. About self-determination, I wanted it presented. If you find a problem with the way I present it, that is fine, but I want it presented. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that your position on this is not consistent with policies like WP:NPOV. Some sources state ex-gay ministries are conversion therapy; others state that they are not. The article needs to reflect this inconsistency and to explain the disagreement, not to try to paper it over. Presenting the different views is the standard approach when sources disagree on issues like this. BG talk 00:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with presenting different views. I would be fine with something like "the APA does not specifically define ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, but says they can help buffer minority stress". The problem is the current paragraph relies too heavily on Haldeman, and when I tried to balance it by putting in sources from the APA, you said I couldn't because they don't specifically call ex-gay groups converion therapy. Just having Haldeman's view is undue weight and doesn't represent it properly. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I find your proposed wording to be highly objectionable. A sentence like, "the APA does not specifically define ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, but says they can help buffer minority stress", may count as original research or interpretation of a source, and even if it does not, it's still plain silly - if the APA doesn't say that ex-gay groups are conversion therapy, then why present its view on them here at all? The article cannot stray away from its subject; your suggestion would cause it do exactly that. You offer no reason at all why including Haldeman should be considered undue weight, or why it isn't being presented properly. BG talk 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall the APA saying anything like that. Mish (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson probably has in mind passages like this, in chapter 5 of the new report: "These individuals report a range of effects from their efforts to change their sexual orientation, including both benefits and harm. The benefits include social and spiritual support, a lessening of isolation, an understanding of values and faith and sexual orientation identity reconstruction." So the APA does say something like what he says it does, but I think that the case for including that in the article has not yet been made. The issue is arguable. BG talk 02:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Clearly reparative therapy is a subset of SOCE. All possible SOCE include reparative therapy. They cannot be equal terms, as electric shock therapy has been considered SOCE but never reparative therapy. It is clear that BG is attempting to create a restrictive definition again, when the whole point of the SOCE page is to create a better article about the whole field of sexual orientation change efforts, whatever they may be. Finding a source that says "reparative therapy or SOCE" only shows that at times the semantic range of the two ideas overlaps, not that they are identical. Reparative therapy is a hyponym of SOCE. Again and again he shows that he does not understand what is being prohibited under WP:NOR ... Hyper3 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The APA has implied that SOCE and reparative therapy are the same thing. It's views in reliable sources that matter here, not personal opinions. If the implication is that they are the same, then Sexual orientation change efforts needs to remain a redirect; it must not be turned into an article. You are mistaken to claim that electric shock therapy has never been considered reparative therapy; it has been considered exactly that, as that term has been used to include all kinds of change therapies. That understanding of the subject might be wrong, but it's not our job as editors to decide that. BG talk 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BG, that is what I recall them saying. I'm not sure 'minority stress' covers "social and spiritual support, a lessening of isolation, an understanding of values and faith and sexual orientation identity reconstruction" in any way... 'reduced isloation, social and sprititual support, (etc.) would be better - although I'm not sure that is relevant to 'conversion therapy'. Mish (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bioenergetics should be removed

I am going to remove the section on Bioenergetics from theories and techniques, because it appears to be original research. We have sources saying Cohen practices Bioenergetics, we have sources saying Cohen practices conversion therapy, but no sources saying that Bioenergetics = conversion therapy. It needs to be removed under WP:SYNTHESIS, unless there are appropriate sources that explicitly spell out that Bioenergetics = conversion therapy. Cohen should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it would be better to put the material about him into a media debate section. BG 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that. Mish (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It is sourced. Where do you suggest we move it to? Should we move it to SOCE? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There are several sources, but so far as I know none saying directly that Bioenergetics is a kind of conversion therapy. Creating a media debate or controversy section would be useful because it would make it possible to fit things like this somewhere in the article; it probably doesn't belong in the existing sections. It should not be moved to SOCE. BG 01:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It is good material and should stay until we find another place for it. If you don't like SOCE, do you have another suggestions? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It is bad material because it violates WP:SYNTH, and there is no justification for keeping it in the article in this form. BG 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You do not have a consensus to remove it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
So far, two editors have supported removing it, and only one (you) has supported retaining it. You have given no policy-based reason why this dubious synthesis of sources should remain. BG 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The Bioenergetics is sourced and should remain on wikipedia. I have moved it to the SOCE page. Therefore, it no longer needs to be on this page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Material on Bioenergetics should go into articles about Bioenergetics. It never needed to be on this page, regardless of its presence or absence elsewhere, since it has never been defined as part of Conversion therapy. It seems to me that, whatever your intentions, the only purpose your new article actually serves is to circumvent reliable sourcing. BG talk 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SOCE page is live!!!

I have pushed the SOCE page live. One of the problems that we were encountering on this page was whether this needed to include all the information on efforts to change sexual orientation (based off an implication by the APA), or if it could focus on the methods specifically identified as CT. Now that we have a page for general SOCE, it frees up this page to specifically talk about methods specifically identified as CT. I removed the bioenergetics section, and there are some other changes I think should be made:

There never should have been any doubt that this page should be restricted to methods that have specifically been described as conversion therapy by reliable sources. Doing otherwise violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and possibly other policies as well. It also makes it impossible to edit the article coherently and keep it to within a reasonable length. This page should be restricted to things that are specifically called Conversion therapy regardless of whether Sexual orientation change efforts is its own article, which, in my opinion, it should not be. Thank you for finally removing some unjustified content that should have gone a long time ago. BG talk 01:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to your proposed changes,

  • No, SOCE should not be mentioned in the lead. It's possible that we are bending policy by mentioning it in the article at all.
  • There is no consistency in the terms sources use, and we must not try to impose it where it does not exist. I'm not aware of more than a handful of sources that specifically refer to SOCE. Since the APA does not explain how the terms are related, your opinion that conversion therapy is a type of SOCE is unfounded speculation, and provides no basis for any changes. It is better to stick to sources that specifically refer to Conversion therapy whenever possible. BG talk 01:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the lead, I've removed the mention of fantasy modification. It isn't a separate type of Conversion therapy according to Haldeman, simply a method of sex therapy. Per WP:LEAD, the lead has to summarize the main points of the article, and fantasy modification being a form of Conversion therapy is never going to be one of them. BG talk 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a great inconsistency in refusing to use the new APA report, which does not specifically refer to CT, while still arguing for using the AAP report, which similarly does not specifically refer to CT. How can you argue to include the AAP report, but not the APA report? What is the difference? Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There's been a misunderstanding here. I honestly don't know what you're talking about, or what you mean by the AAP report. When did I argue for including it? BG talk 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
In my second bullet point, I listed several documents that referred to efforts to change sexual orientation, but do not mention CT or RT, including the AAP. Either they should be removed from the text, or it should be made clear that they are discussing SOCE in general, and not specifically CT. The sources I listed included: The American Academy Of Paediatrics, the 1997 guidelines from the APA called Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation] and of course the new 2009 guidelines from the APA called Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts, which has not been included. Whatever you think we should do with them, I think we should treat them the same way. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You are correct about the AAP report. The appropriate thing to do would be to remove it; saying that it is discussing SOCE in general rather than Conversion therapy specifically is POV when there is no proof Conversion therapy is one type of SOCE. I am less sure about the 1997 APA guidelines; although they don't specifically refer to Conversion therapy, it does seem to be clearly what they have in mind, and they use a source (Haldeman) who seems to use a very similar term. I'll have to think about it. I'm unsure about the new APA report also. BG talk 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Theories and techniques

I've gone ahead and updated the theories and techniques section, without waiting for discussion. I've done this because in my view, now that there seems to be agreement that the article should be mainly based on sources that specifically use the term "Conversion therapy" and that sources that do not should be used instead at Sexual orientation change efforts, it makes no sense not to add a key source (Haldeman) who does use this term. I agree that there are some problems still with the material I'm adding - it could be rewritten, or the style improved. There are also some bugs remain to be fixed; I'll do that in a moment. I cannot see any reasonable argument against the content itself, however. The new material I've added could indeed be written differently and probably in better ways, but it is actually better written than some other parts of the article, notably the history section. BG talk 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that according to WP:LEAD, the lead has to be a summary of the main points of the article. This means that it makes no sense to list what the methods of conversion therapy are according to Douglas Haldeman unless we are also going to describe what he actually says about those methods. So there would be no justification for providing the list of techniques in the lead without also adding the descriptions of the methods in question. BG talk 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ex-gay section

Most of this section should be removed, as it is not therapy, but the opposite. No one would consider this behaviour helpful. The page is about conversion therapy, not abuse. Hyper3 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is about therapy and abuses that have occured in the context of that therapy. It must not be removed. The only ground on which one could remove it would be that no criticism of conversion therapy, the harms it causes or the abuses it may involve, should appear here. That is not an acceptable position. BG talk 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we include statements from ex-gay groups that they do not offer therapy? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The ex-gay ministry section isn't about individual ex-gay groups. It's about the phenomenon as a whole. So no, statements from individual ex-gay groups probably don't belong there. BG talk 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Haldeman quotation

Joshuajohanson has altered the description of Douglas Haldeman's views in the lead so that it now reads, "Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality, that techniques include psychoanalysis, group therapy, aversive conditioning involving electric shock or nausea-inducing drugs, sex therapy, reparative therapy, and involvement in ex-gay ministries such as Exodus International, and that claims of its effectiveness are unsupported by empirical evidence, and those who seek conversion therapy must not be discouraged."

There are several problems with that. That sentence is now too long, and badly written. To follow "and involvement in ex-gay ministries such as Exodus International, and that claims of its effectiveness are unsupported by empirical evidence" with "and those who seek conversion therapy must not be discouraged" is awkward and poor style. To addition of a second "and" makes the sentence non-grammatical. Furthermore, I believe that this misrepresents Haldeman's views by taking them out of context. Haldeman is fundamentally critical of conversion therapy, and believes that it cannot be recommended. The addition made by Joshuajohanson fails to convey that.

(the context of the quotation added by Joshuajohanson is, "Even with data to prove that all who request a change of sexual orientation are acting out of internalized social pressure, we would be hard-pressed to deny such individuals the treatment or spiritual interventions they seek. In the absence of empirically based conversion therapy models, such treatments are difficult to recommend. Nevertheless, we must respect the choices of all who seek to live life in accordance with their own identities; and if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged.") BG talk 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that a better reading? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure that content belongs in the lead at all, but I won't remove it for the moment. Per WP:LEAD, it only belongs in the lead if it reflects content in the article, at the moment, there's nothing there about Haldeman saying that people have the right to choose conversion therapy if that's what they want. It could be added, however, and it would make sense to do that. BG talk 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia category

Joshuajohanson, you removed the Homophobia category here [4]. That was a mistake. Please read what the category page says - the homophobia category is for articles that refer to the topic of homophobia. This article does refer to the topic of homophobia. So, please do not remove the category. You don't have any case for removing it. BG talk 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What part of this article refers to homophobia? The word homophobia does not appear in the article, and it is not discussed in any length. The only connection that I see is the talk about people and organizations who want to prevent LGB people from living their own lives and prevent them from seeking professional help and forcing them to turn to questionable sources that are not overseen by the medical industry. That is homophobia. But unless this article specifically relates the two concepts, it doesn't belong in that category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson, I think historically that sources can show that organizations promoting conversion therapy are homophobic. They tend to be conservatively religious, and find homosexuality sinful and have sometimes promoted violence and discrimination against GLBT people. I don't think the article should avoid the history behind this therapy; a way to force GLBT people to be straight so as to avoid sin. There are many sources such as [5][http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Conversion-Therapy-Clinical-Perspectives/dp/0789019116][http://www.amazon.com/Anything-but-Straight-Unmasking-Scandals/dp/1560234466/ref=pd_sim_b_3/184-2892952-3966924][6][7]. I do support the article stating neutrally why certain people seek these therapies, but the history of this therapy as well as the damage it has done to people should be in the article as well if it is to be accurate.
In any case, I think that your position as well as Hyper3 represents a newer and more realistic perspective; the trouble is, it only takes a quick Google search to find that the organizations who either promote these organizations and/or this therapy have views that are homophobic even today.--Boweneer (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It is OR to assume just because someone is conservatively religious they are homophobic. Also, just because some people who support it happen to be homophobic doesn't mean it is homophobic in and of itself. As I said, not even the strongest advocates support any attempt to "force GLBT people to be straight", unless you go back to Alan Turing era. Also, transgenderism is a completely different issue. You know that some transgender people are straight, right? This only affects GLB people, it does not affect GLBT people. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson, Which is why I have no intention to actually edit this article. This subject is incredibly volatile with very strong partisans on both sides of the issue. I happen to disagree with most of what you have said, and the links I chose above represent what *could* be sourced to use to add to this article, and that was just a quick search on my part. I am trying very hard to understand your views and ideas on the talk pages. Again, I do not want to enter the actual "battlefield," because my ability to remain neutral is compromised by personal experience.
I simply state what my POV is; that the majority of the push for this kind of therapy comes from conservative religions, and previous history shows that from many sources. What you've stated above is your opinion. I respect that. However, this history of homophobia, sin and conservative religion is more recent than Alan Turing, and can even be shown. I think that unless you can accomodate some of what BG and other editors on the opposite side of the argument see, this article is just going to continue to be contentious; and I imagine the SOCE article will end up in the same boat.--Boweneer (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that because the article refered specifically to homophobia the category was appropriate. It definitely did refer to homophobia in past versions but that seems to have been removed; I don't know when that happened. I would still request that you not remove the category for the time being, however. The category will become appropriate again as soon as a mention of homophobia is added to the article, which could happen at any time (and probably should). BG talk 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until the time which the article talks about homophobia. I would have to see the talk about homophobia, to make sure it passes NPOV. There are lots of people who like to throw around homophobia about anything. But that is a discussion for another time. For now, it should not be in the homophobia category until there is mention of homophobia in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No one should be either adding or removing the category at the moment because we are still supposed to be having a mediation. As a gesture of good faith, please postpone this discussion and leave the article the way it is for the moment. BG talk 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Careful review of these studies could be useful to show the link between conversion therapy and homophobia Why Do Individuals Seek Conversion Therapy? Weighing the Evidence: Empirical Assessment and Ethical Implications of Conversion TherapyReflections from the Conversion Therapy Battlefield. Consider also that it can be shown from some studies that there is internalized homophobia in those who seek these kinds of therapies.
Again, I think it is important for this article to not just be a description of the positive aspects (like the APA quote that Joshuajohanson has pointed out), but that there have been serious and negative side effects to people pursuing these conversion techniques, as well as a realistic assessment of the religious organizations behind the organizations involved in SOCE and conversion therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boweneer (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit to the lead by Tdinatale

The recent edit to the lead by Tdinatale here [8] violates WP:LEAD, which explains that articles need to establish the notability of the topic they are concerned with in the first sentence. I accept that it was a good faith edit, but it was not an improvement and needs to be reverted. I won't revert myself right now because of the mediation I'm involved with. BG talk 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Jimbo's comments

I think this comment from Jimbo is helpful:

sexual reorientation

I'm noticing that in the literature "reorientation therapy" is used as a synonym for "conversion therapy," but this is not in the terminology section. If we accept this, then other sources come more easily into play. Hyper3 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sexual modification therapy" too. Hyper3 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I will start adding them in soon. Hyper3 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Other sources come more easily into play". No, they do not. This is the conversion therapy article and should be based on sources that discuss conversion therapy, using that term. BG talk 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't about a term, its about an idea. Get used to it - that is the inevitable conclusion. Hyper3 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't about an "idea" because nobody can agree what "idea" conversion might be. That is the inevitable conclusion. BG talk 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't about a "term" because there is no such thing as a term without an idea. And sorry about the silly "get used to it stuff" I was being annoying. Something you've already got used to no doubt... Hyper3 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So you think that there aren't terms that no one can agree how to define? BG talk 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Terms are defined by their use within a context. To the degree to which meaning can be assigned by their context, is the degree to which it is being used rationally. If there is a debate about its meaning, which is often the case, then the debate itself may well illustrate the best explanation so far of the meaning of the term. If the term is not being used rationally, then there is doubt over whether a wikipedia page should be given over to it. Are you saying that conversion therapy is not being used rationally? Merely noting conflict does not make it indeterminate. Hyper3 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't need a lecture from you about how to define a term. There is no agreed upon definition of conversion therapy and "context" doesn't change that. BG talk 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have made the above statement. Conflict about a term does not stop us from using the best definition available. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to enlighten people who are confused. Hence the entry should note how a term is used, (even if not totally rationally) using the ideas that form its context, and any other terms used similarly. Or we could just cover our eyes and hide, and hope the nasty terminology problem goes away. Hyper3 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no way of determining the best definition. "Using the ideas that form its context" to do so would be original research (and for what it's worth, contexts don't consist of "ideas"). BG talk 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is original research to do anything other than what I have said - so original that nowhere else on wikipedia can you find such a disruptive approach. Hyper3 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What an idiotic and arrogant reply. You offer no reason for your position whatever. BG talk 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Invective, invective. So we are to conduct this conversation with insults? Do you want me to reply in the same way? Hyper3 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Give reasons for your views or your comments are a waste of talk page space. BG talk 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
So you've given up entirely on politeness. Alright, I'll save my comments for the mediation page. Hyper3 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to engage in some exchange of insults with you here (or elsewhere). I repeat, however, that you do have to give reasons for your views if you want to convince other people. BG talk 06:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism

Hyper3 has, once again, removed the mention of Christian fundamentalism from the lead [9], giving some totally mistaken reasons. The result of that was to make the lead look vague and stupid, so I reverted him. It's totally absurd for the lead simply to say that Conversion therapy is promoted by "religious organizations" - what the heck does that mean? It could mean anything, and readers would be left to wonder whether we're talking about Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, or whatever. What Yoshino actually writes is, "In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations. These include fundamentalist Christian groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland." So obviously, Yoshino is concerned especially with Christian fundamentalists. Removing this information from the lead is unacceptable. BG talk 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yoshino is wrong - for example Exodus is not predominantly fundamentalist. Its a technical term and has certain meanings - something you are very keen on. Yoshino is not a theologian, and may not be expected to get things like this right. It makes the lead look foolish to anyone who understands these things. If you really want fundamentalist in, then make a longer list including Evangelical and Catholic. This is a classic moment where editors with different skills make an entry better, where needless squabbling for control and aggressive micro-management creates obvious error. Hyper3 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No Hyper3, you're wrong. Yoshino's article is a reliable source. What matters is what he thinks, not what you think. Our goal is verifiability, not truth. You've already stated in past discussions that you know that (eg, in "Moving forward with the article", above), so it's becoming clear that you are acting in bad faith. BG talk
I understand your point, but because it is the lead, I think I am still right. Firstly, where in the article is it discussed whether those who are pro-conversion therapy are fundamentalist, Catholic or evangelical? Wherever this occurs, the lead should summarise it. Your quote, which is dead wrong, should not dominate the lead but it should appear in a subsidiary place in the article where it can be discussed by quoting further sources. Do you really want me to add to the lead an argument about the definition of "fundamentalism"? I will if you want... Hyper3 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY applies everywhere in the article, including the lead. The history section needs to be rewritten as a summary of Yoshino's discussion of the history of conversion therapy, since he is the only appropriate source for that. When that happens, the history section will contain a proper discussion of fundamentalism (defined as Yoshino defines it), and the statement in the lead will be an appropriate summary of that. BG talk 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would want a definition of fundamentalism by a lawyer... So currently the lead does not summarise what is in the body on this issue. I think you should withdraw the reference to fundamentalism until there is a place for this to be addressed. Hyper3 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Why by a lawyer? Why not a lawyer? You could equally well ask why we should write the history of conversion therapy using an article by a lawyer. The answer is that it's the only source that sets out to discuss the history of conversion therapy, and thus the only source that can be used in accord with WP:NOR. I intend to rewrite the history section of this article using Yoshino as a source, and when that's done, the lead will serve as a proper summary for the article. Removing the reference to fundamentalism in the meanwhile would simply be silly.BG talk 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
BG - keeping to wikipedia guidelines is silly now? Hyper3 (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What guidelines are you talking about and how do you think they support you? BG talk 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests the lead should be a summary of important aspects of the article: if it is not in the body, it should not exist in the summary.Hyper3 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this. It will be added to the body. There is no point to removing it from the lead, because it will only be added again in due course. It would be inconsistent to remove the reference to fundamentalism from the lead because it's not in the body without also removing Haldeman's view that people have the right to choose conversion therapy if they want it from the lead - that's not in the body either. BG talk 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite history section

The history section of this article suffers from several obvious defects. It is much too long, is poorly organized, and places far too much emphasis on minor details that are of little importance to the subject as a whole. Most of the information in it would be more appropriate to other articles, and it does a poor job of explaining overall trends and developments within the field of conversion therapy, as well as its current situation. It is sourced to numerous sources that do not refer to conversion therapy, and so conflicts with WP:NOR, as well as with the due weight requirement of WP:NPOV. I therefore propose that it be replaced with the version I've been working on in my sandbox here [10]. I will not do this immediately myself, because I am engaged in mediation and have promised not to make further major changes to the article for the time being. BG talk 05:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(If I rewrite the history section as suggested, I would add a picture of Socarides to the gilded age section. I can't put the picture in my sandbox because it's not a free image and non-free images can't be used in user space). BG talk 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait to do major rewrite until the scope of the article is determined. Your history seems to rely heavily on the fact that ex-gay groups are SOCE. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not going to do the change right away. However, if you don't agree with my proposed version, it's up to you to suggest other ways the history section could be improved - supposing you agree that it does need improving. BG talk 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than shorten the history section, a new page should be created called "History of conversion therapy." BG you know we were still talking about this, but you couldn't wait could you? Keep working on the whole collaboration, politeness, consensus building thing and we'll get there in the end. Hyper3 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex-gay section

Some progress was made in this section, and a change was agreed, but has not been implemented. Could The Wordsmith do the change? Hyper3 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You would do better to ask him that directly. I'd like to ask whether unconstructive changes such as that made to the lead recently by Tdinatale can be reverted. Actually, there wasn't 100% agreement how the section should read; I proposed a version slightly different to that suggested by The Wordsmith, so it would be better to wait for further discussion. BG talk 08:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the one change for which consensus is obtained has been made. I went with BG's proposal, since they both accomplish the same thing, and the difference was small. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy/Archive_15&oldid=816949520"