Talk:Aesthetic Realism

Update
Modified the lede to include difference between Aesthetic Realism and other approaches to mind and to include the Chairman of Education. Made the definition of Aesthetic Realism exact (as described by founder) and less informal.

Per comment below by Outerlimits, I clarified the explanation of Aesthetic Realism in relation to poetry, philosophy, and classes but did not touch the section on homosexuality. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Other than to move sections you prefer above it to push it further down the page to a more hidden position, you mean. - Outerlimits (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bias
As others have noted this article does not seem to be neutral. Every claim opposed to this group and its ideas appears to be refuted rather than left as neutral. mnewmanqc (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Section edited, taking out long defenses and explanations in order to clarify opposing points of view. LoreMariano (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, you seem to have eliminated cited points of view and eliminated references that support points of view with which you, an advocate of Aesthetic Realism, do not agree. I think you should feel free to add the (usually logorrheic) explanations that Aesthetic Realists prefer, but you'd be better off leaving the explanations of your opponents (e.g., gay men) alone. - Outerlimits (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood the reason for the revision in the lede. It is simply an update, pointing to [the current] "A Note on Aesthetic Realism and Homosexuality" on the Aesthetic Realism Foundation website. LoreMariano (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Update
I have modified the lead a bit for clarity and placed some of the detailed explanations there under the Philosophy section. I hope the edit improved the introduction. I have also added some info and their corresponding sources. Feel free to modify the changes made to improve the article further. If you have a question, please send me a message. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wording of the lead
Trouver, at present there are two users, Outerlimits and myself, who prefer the wording that was added here. You have reverted this wording multiple times now (here, here, and here), despite the fact that no editor other than you has indicated support for the older version. Please stop. For obvious reasons, a two-against-one situation is not one in which you should continue reverting. None of the reasons you have given for restoring the older wording are convincing. To say that, "The change from homosexuality is well-documented", is irrelevant, because the issue is not whether the claim in question is correct but only how to describe it. To say that, "This is how the change is expressed by the men and women who have experienced it... Those who have not experienced it have no right to distort their words", is not persuasive. The material is not a direct quotation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Trouver. Would you please respect Wikipedia's normal processes for dispute resolution and try to resolve this disagreement on the talk page? Thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry I reverted your last change before reading the Talk Page.Trouver (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The section on homosexuality presents the principles of Aesthetic Realism which enable change to occur as I know from firsthand experience. The sentence in the lead describing this change was agreed upon by consensus and has stood for many years.  There is no reason to change it. Braxton7248 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "firsthand experience" is completely irrelevant. The issue under discussion is how to describe the Aesthetic Realist Foundation's claim that men changed their sexual orientation through the study of Aesthetic Realism, not whether the claim is correct. The reason why the passage stating that the Foundation claimed that "men changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality" should be changed is that it is poorly written and does not use English correctly. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's please keep this discussion polite. Greetings to Braxton 7248 who apparently agrees that "changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality" is the most accurate way of describing the change, and is standard English. The phrase also appears in the citation following this sentence.


 * "The sentence in the lead describing this change was agreed upon by consensus and has stood for many years." The first part of this is a lie that the Aesthetic Realists have repeated here ad nauseam, and the second is disingenuous. There was *never* any consensus, and the only reason that anything in this article has "stood for many years" is that the Aesthetic Realists lunge to revert anything they don't like. MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Users have been arguing over whether the wording should be "changed from homosexuality to homosexuality" or "homosexual men became heterosexual", but both are too wordy. I changed it to the plain "stopped being gay". Also, the second wording didn't include women, but I included them in my rewrite. Also, the old wording said that the controversy was "in the 1980s", but it actually started in the 1970s and hasn't stopped. A newspaper called AR an "anti-gay cult" in 2008. Finally, ARists try to whitewash this by emphasizing that they discontinued the gay-change program, suggesting that they no longer believe the gay-change ability of AR, but in fact they do believe it, they just don't teach it any more, so I included that bit. If ARists keep on whitewashing the article, it'll backfire on them when they're faced with the whole article being rewritten from scratch. MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Self published site cannot be used since it is self-promoting. The description is inaccurate.  Men describe themselves as having changed and not "stopping" from being homosexual.  There is a big difference.  Original wording was arrived at by consensus and has remained for many years.  It should not be changed. Braxton7248 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

capitalization
The guidance at MOS:MOVEMENT indicates that "aesthetic realism" should not be capitalized, and I wonder if any editors will deep familiarity with this page know if there was a deviation from that standard with intention or not. ~TPW 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Capitalization distinguishes the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel from another and very different conception in contemporary aesthetics. See this Note on the subject published in the British Journal of Aesthetics: https://philpapers.org/rec/GREANO
 * Another example illustrating the fact that the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel is described with capital letters:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mq30BQAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=Edward+Green+Aesthetic+Realism&source=bl&ots=jCtz_2z45C&sig=ACfU3U1bOA4dcONzhwv77ppXIENIK3iURQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixmOr-oZj9AhWwLUQIHZpvDdA4PBDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Green%20Aesthetic%20Realism&f=false.Trouver (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)