Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 13

Request for comment: Aesthetic Realism
Should the history section of Conversion therapy include Aesthetic Realism?

Born Gay (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. There are no sources that support the claim that Aesthetic Realism has anything more than a very minor relevance to the history of conversion therapy. Including the material would violate WP:DUE. It would also potentially open a floodgate to further WP:UNDUE material - about Krafft-Ebing, Charcot, primal scream therapy, the Nazis, Gunter Dorner, and nobody knows what else. There is simply no way that all this material can be included in the history section and it would be absurd to even try, as past discussions here have shown. Born Gay (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If there is no WP:RS that describes this as CT (or RT) then No. If there is, then Yes.   My understanding is there is not, so No. Mish (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It may deserve an extremely brief mention because one writer identified as practicing conversion therapy mentions it, but if we include all the disputed material MichaelBluejay wants to include the end result is that the history section would have to be expanded to include all methods of attempting to change homosexuality. I tried the include-everything approach months ago, and eventually realized that it can't be made to work. See talk Archive 8 for the background. My current thoughts are here. Born Gay (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I honestly don't know much about Aesthetic Realism. The current lead says "Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, involves methods intended to convert gay, lesbian and bisexual people to heterosexuality."  It is important to be consistent throughout the article. If there are methods intended to convert gay, lesbians and bisexual people to heterosexuality which are not deemed to be a type of conversion therapy, that should be explained.  Otherwise, you are misleading the reader. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Explaining this stuff is the point of the terminology section. Including more than the briefest mention of Aesthetic Realism in history would be misleading. Born Gay (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both, and that used to be in the lead at one point, if I remember right (too late to play hunt the missing information); it needs to be brief. If we start explaining all things that were not conversion therapy, then we would have to include Leucotomy/Lobotomy, Electro-convulsive therapy, Narcotherapy, Surgical castration, Chemical castration, Aversion therapy, Hormone therapy, Rubber bands, and so on, as well.  They would be mentioned as part of a brief historical note about the experimental treatments that have not worked and damaged people in the past, but not covered individually; they would be noted as not being conversion therapy.  They should be mentioned alongside that they were all dropped because they didn't tend to work and damaged people (i.e., people either ended up so messed-up by the treatment sex was the last thing they were worried about, or they survived and became gay or lesbian).  So this historical experimental treatment is in no more in need of its own section than any of those I listed (as these were sanctioned for use in psychiatric departments in the USA and Europe during the third quarter of the twentieth century).  While we are at it, perhaps we could say something about CT being the latest in a long line of experimental treatments to 'cure' people who are homosexual, and turn them into people who can play house and make babies in the traditional way? I guess a source would be out there somewhere for that, although without the language I used. Mish (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is sourced, neutral and clearly relevant. The fact that it is not mentioned by other sources may show that those sources are weak in this respect. In my research capacity I am always finding otherwise good sources lacking important aspects. This is not an argument for excluding sources, just an argument for including more varied sources, and not allowing some sources to rule because they are well thought of by some editors. Hyper3 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is sourced, neutral, relevant and notable. And importantly, BornGay has never explained why Aesthetic Realism does not meet the definition of Conversion Therapy (much less provided one). (BornGay, please see my comments in the AR section above.) MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're joking. See my section below, Talk:Conversion therapy. Michaelbluejay, please see WP:COI. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Two, possibly three, editors have now either stepped over WP:3RR in the past 24 hours or are close to it. I am not going to name them, and I am not going to report them. Despite some attempts to discuss these edits, there has been far more activity on the article than the discussion page. This is a warning - this is not helping the article, and if anybody is trying to read this article, and going back and forth as they follow links, I am sure it is very confusing for them. I have managed to restrain myself mostly (apart from the Ex-gay/NARTH synthesis in the lead). I will continue to do so, unless I notice something ridiculous or faulty going in. If the edit war persists, I will compile a report and submit it, and diff the edits of the three editors involved. I would like to suggest that you cool off by agreeing on a moratorium for 24 hours to demonstrate good faith, and discuss the multiple edits and reversals on the talk page - that is what it is here for. Continuing this way inevitably ends up with people being blocked and creates bad feeling. Mish (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am trying to be more careful, and I don't think what you're doing is unreasonable. Note, however, that Knulclunk, who has restored the Jones/Yarhouse study multiple times, has simply ignored most of what I've said about it on the talk page, including my explanations of why it is inappropriate here. Based on this behavior, it appears that he or she is going to refuse to engage in further discussion, and will simply go on restoring this grossly misleading content. If my impression is mistaken, is it up to Knulclunk to show it by responding. It would be helpful if you could comment on what I said about the study. Born Gay (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be a sign of good faith if the editor reverted the item he is keen to keep re-inserting. I agree with you, if the authors explicitly say they are not looking at conversion therapy, but ex-gay ministries, and there is nothing to suggest this is about such therapy (i.e., reparative therapy instead), then if it goes anywhere, it should go in the Ex-gay article, not this one, as it is irrelevant - unless their own work directly influenced the development of conversion therapy.  I guess from what you are saying it didn't.  If we start to include religious ministries as conversion therapy, then we would need to include witch-doctors and ministers casting out evil spirits in Africa - I don't think that is the way to go really. Mish (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the main problem with including the study here (not the fact that it's written by people who are in favour of converting gay people to heterosexuality - I believe in trying to edit in a neutral way, and would not exclude something for that reason). Jones and Yarhouse directly state that their study wasn't about conversion therapy and that its relevance to conversion therapy was limited at best. They did not claim to have proven anything about conversion therapy; including it here makes it look as though they did and misrepresents the study's purpose. Knulclunk has ignored this. In addition, this may not be a sufficiently reliable source for this purpose, as it was published by a religious press, not a conventional academic one. Born Gay (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly some kind of compromise could be worked out here, but I am not sure it would work. The only way this study could be mentioned in the ex-gay section in a way that wasn't misleading would be to explain that Jones and Yarhouse did not consider ex-gay treatment a kind of conversion therapy, and that they concluded that their results might possibly have some limited and indirect relevance to conversion therapy. It might look rather odd, though, and I'm not sure that it would meet due weight. Born Gay (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We could compromise to leave the Ex-gay section as a simple sentence definition with the hatnote to the main article. That worked as a stable solution before the recent round of edits.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument that Jones and Yarhouse do not consider ex-gay treatment "conversion therapy" is misleading. Many of the sources, including the proposed Gonsiorek and Weinrich essay, do equate "ex-gay treatment" and "conversion therapy". --Knulclunk (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are sufficient sources that describe ex-gay ministries as a form of conversion therapy for NPOV and due weight to require some basic information about them here, less than would go in the ex-gay article, but much more than simply a single sentence. It's true that some of Jones and Yarhouse's sources regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy, but they don't. There is no justification for representing a study that stated it wasn't about conversion therapy as being about conversion therapy, so the material would have to be rewritten if it were to be included here at all, which it probably shouldn't be. Born Gay (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the contested section back to its stable state. Let's continue discussion here on the talk page!--Knulclunk (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It never had a stable state. You've again removed properly sourced content without a good reason; I've restored it. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that if your content gets removed, the other guy's content gets removed too. Born Gay (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If we are going to talk about ex-gay groups, we need to talk about ex-gay groups as a whole, whether the specific source defines them as a conversion therapy group or not. So either we don't talk about ex-gay groups at all, or we include all sourced material about ex-gay groups, giving weight to official reports by the APA. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ex gay has its own article, so if there are connections, all we need to do is briefly describe these, and note that these groups are regarded as problematic by psychologists.Mish (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The ex-gay material here needs to be carefully limited to what is actually relevant to conversion therapy, and the descriptions of it should be taken from sources that regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy, not from those that don't. I agree now that the material sourced to Haldeman's essay does need to be rewritten somewhat. I agree in principle with what Mish was trying to do with her edits there, though personally I would use a slightly different wording. Born Gay (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat what I just said further up the page: I did suggest we discuss the changes one by one, and I for one do not have the time to engage with them all at the same time. Can I suggest you do this - go through each change, one by one, to give other editors time to respond - rather than chucking everything in the pot all at once.  By all means, if you can improve upon my efforts textually, do so. Mish (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is that the wording should make clear that the description of ex-gay treatment is Haldeman's view; that was the key change required. I'm not going to try to change the wording of that section right away. By the way, if you're wondering why I wasn't more specific about which ex-gay leaders were disgraced and involved in sex scandals, that's partly because Haldeman gets one name wrong, and I believe we need to show discretion and ethical care, and not give a wrong name. Born Gay (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Born gay said "the descriptions of it should be taken from sources that regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy". That is ridiculous.  That is like saying the only information in the section on Freud has to describe his work as conversion therapy. The new APA paper might not describe ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, but it doesn't say that it isn't conversion therapy either. When reading a section on ex-gay groups in an article on conversion therapy, a reader would expect to get an accurate depiction of the medical view of ex-gay groups in relation to conversion therapy.  To only include negative sources, because they specifically refer to them as conversion therapy, and exclude positive sources, because they refer to them as SOCE, is dishonest, manipulative and POV.  The section as a whole needs to be neutral, and all reliable sources can be used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In a section on ex-gay groups in an article on conversion therapy, it is quite reasonable that the information about them should be taken primarily from sources that actually regard them as conversion therapy. Other sources can be used too, carefully and judiciously, but there is no need to add anything that conclicts with or contradicts what the main sources state. The new APA report does not deal with ex-gay groups in relation to conversion therapy, and the Jones/Yarhouse book is not a fully reliable source anyway. Your point about Freud is hardly relevant. Regarding your comments about me being "dishonest, manipulative and POV", please see WP:NPA. Born Gay (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this section is still as it is. This is a POV essay by a dubious source about the evils of Ex-gay ministry that notes multiple unrelated factors of a single example taken more than a decade ago. Several editors have questioned its appropriateness. Attempts to remove by any editor it or even modify its wording has been met immediate reverting by the original contributor. Any attempts to offer equally sourced paragraphs is also met with immediate reverting by the original contributor. Who, while defending the edit on the talk page, still has continually broken WP:3RR. I suppose we can remove the entire Ex-gay section, as it is not really very helpful right now.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of what "POV" means is incorrect, presumably because you don't understand WP:NPOV. Views from reliable sources, which includes Gonsiorek and Weinrich's book, are not considered unacceptable "POV." They are appropriate material. The book's being more than a decade old does not make it unacceptable as a source, in fact, as one of the earliest sources on conversion therapy, it's an ideal starting point, though I agree that we should be careful about how the material is presented. It does not surprise me that "several editors" have questioned its appropriateness. You are all wrong, and you are no less wrong because there are "several" of you. I've explained already why Jones/Yarhouse does not belong here. Removing the section is without justification. Born Gay (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Knulclunk's point of view is not NPOV because it isn't your POV? The article should equally reflect all point of views, not just yours.  You keep acting like you own this article.  We don't have to get stuff run by you in order to make any changes.  We are not questioning Gonsiorek and Weinrich.  We are questioning the way it is presented.  Ex-gay groups have lots of benefits acknowledged by several mainstream medical organizations. To focus exclusively on the negative given by one author and by refusing to allow any other source be added is enforcing your point of view.  This section should be a summary of the main article.  There is no reason why the new APA findings cannot be included in there.  If ex-gays are considered conversion therapy, then we should accurately summarize ex-gays.  If not, we should take out the whole section.  The argument that the only source that can be admitted is one that shows it in a negative light because it specifically refers to it as a conversion therapy is a ridiculous argument and does not stand.  We will work on making the section NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, to you own argument that nothing should be added until it passes a consensus on the talk page, I am removing it until a consensus can be reached. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the wrong way to go about it. It should be reverted back to the original version, and as the action is removal, that then needs discussing.  What you are doing is still edit warring.  I have asked the page to be protected, as clearly none of the editors here are capable of leaving material alone while it is discussed - and that makes the job harder (i.e. multiple editors hitting several moving targets).  I have done this because it would be very difficult to single out one editor for edit warring when several are involved.Mish (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered what I said following BornGay's response to me. This section should not be a summary, and I will explain why.  You seem to equate Ex-gay with conversion therapy, but that is not the case.  Conversion therapy exists independently of the Ex-gay movement, but SOME Ex-gay groups advocate it.  They do not undertake is, because they are not therapists, they are support groups.  The only aspect of the Ex-gay article (which is not NPOV in the way it deals with the topic) that is relevant is the section on Conversion therapy (because only some advocate this), but that is a brief account of CT.  There would be no point putting that here, as we cover it in more detail, and there would be no point summarising Ex-gay as most of it is irrelevant to this article.  All that needs doing is saying what it is, what the problems or benefits with them are according to relevant sources (APA, etc.), and the level of engagement with CT.  Notable psychologists who have undertaken studies, even critically, of Ex-gay in relation to CT would be relevant.  You have no right removing it. Mish (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to get it pretty much to the version before people started messing with it. It is now exact. You misunderstand my objection.  First of all, I have a right to remove it because on this page we seek consensus before making contentious additions. Born Gay did not seek this consensus.  Until the consensus is achieved, it should not be put back in.  Second, I have never said that the source is irrelevant.  My argument is that the way it was written was POV.  You state that the other sources cannot be included because not all ex-gay groups advocate it.  The way it was written was not clear.  It seemed to be a statement on all ex-gay groups.  If you have a problem with the way the ex-gay page is written, the place to raise the objection would be on the ex-gay page, not here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One way of possibly resolving this is via search in scholar: "Google Scholar aims to sort articles the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each article, the author, the publication in which the article appears, and how often the piece has been cited in other scholarly literature. The most relevant results will always appear on the first page." On the first page, 8/10 relate to CT as we understand it .  The first ten papers are:


 * The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy, DC Haldeman - Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and …, 2003 - Columbia University Press
 * (Cited by 169)


 * Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination, DC Haldeman - Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, 1991
 * (Cited by 55)


 * Treating the purple menace: Ethical considerations of conversion therapy and affirmative alternatives, EE Tozer, MK McClanahan - The counseling psychologist, 1999 - tcp.sagepub.com
 * (Cited by 53)


 * Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy, J Nicolosi, AD Byrd, RW Potts - Psychological Reports, 2000
 * (Cited by 34)


 * Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives, A Shidlo, M Schroeder, J Drescher - 2001 - eric.ed.gov
 * (Cited by 27)


 * Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy, DC Haldeman - PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH, 2002
 * (Cited by 36)


 * Identity Development Why Do Individuals Seek Conversion Therapy?: The Role of Religiosity, Internalized Homonegativity, EE Tozer, JA Hayes - The counseling psychologist, 2004
 * (Cited by 26)


 * Mormon Clients’ Experiences of Conversion Therapy: The need for a new treatment approach, AL Beckstead, SL Morrow - The Counseling Psychologist, 2004
 * (Cited by 29)


 * Conversion therapies for same-sex attracted clients in religious conflict: Context, SL Morrow, AL Beckstead - The Counseling Psychologist, 2004
 * (Cited by 16)


 * The pseudo-science of sexual orientation conversion therapy, D Haldeman - The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian …, 1999
 * (Cited by 16)

One paper by Gonsiorek features on the second page, is not one of the 'top ten' returned, and only has 9 citations:
 * Reflections from the Conversion Therapy Battlefield, JC Gonsiorek - The Counseling Psychologist, 2004
 * (Cited by 9)

Which suggests it is a poor source when compared to Drescher, Shidlo, et al. Mish (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, my comment was not about sources, but why a summary of the ex-gay page would be irrelevant, as only material that relates to this article would be relevant, and there is too little detail to summarise. I have no intention of wading in on the ex-gay page, it is a WP:SOAP. Mish (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The APA source about ex-gay says this (immediately after the bit cited) "These individuals and organizations tend to have negative attitudes toward homosexuality that are based in their particular religious perspectives. In general, efforts to change sexual orientation through religious ministries take the approach that sexual orientation can be changed through repentance and faith. In addition, some individuals and groups who promote efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy are also associated with religious perspectives that take a negative attitude toward homosexuality." which seems to clarify what they are and where they sit in relation to CT. This ought to go in, as it is more informative than telling us it is also called 'transformational minstry'. The pamphlet seems to give some clarity about the differences between Ex-gay and CT. Mish (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the form of the section is better now than what was removed, apart from being completely inaccurate - so I have edited for accuracy. Mish (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Our personal views about whether ex-gay ministries = conversion therapy or not are not relevant. Personally, I agree with Mish that they are not the same; however, I do not think her recent edits to the section have helped clarify things. Some reliable sources equate ex-gay ministries with conversion therapy, some insist they are distinct, and both views have to be presented neutrally; the way that was before was appropriate in terms of WP:NPOV. The sentence stating, "Some ex-gay ministries advocate conversion therapy, while other ex-gay organizations use methods other than conversion therapy of trying to change homosexual sexual orientation" does not explain the conflicting views that exist in reliable sources accurately (it obscures the fact that ex-gay ministries are conversion therapy according to some sources), and nor are the page references right. Page 374 of the Jones and Yarhouse book does clearly support the statement it sources (eg, some sources say ex-gay ministries aren't conversion therapy) in the version I added, but it seems to have nothing to do with the statement it's connected with in Mish's version.

It's ludicrous to say that the ex-gay section here should be a summary of the main article. It can't be, just as the Freud section can't be a summary of Sigmund Freud's views about homosexuality, as that would include too much material about aspects of Freud's views on homosexuality that don't relate to changing it. The point is to include what is directly relevant. What goes here should depend on what reliable sources that discuss ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy say, which means that there is plenty of material (including Jones/Yarhouse) that would be appropriate to the ex-gay article that isn't appropriate here. Removing the section totally is not appropriate, and looks like an attempt to censor embarrassing material that is not welcomed by a certain POV. I would request replies on my talk page at the moment, as the talk page of this article has become extremely long. I've added a revised version of that section to my sandbox in response to criticism of the older version, and feedback would be helpful. Born Gay (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Joshuajohanson's question, "Are you saying that Knulclunk's point of view is not NPOV because it isn't your POV?" No, that was not my point - please don't attribute such a childish suggestion to me. My point was that Knulclunk is ignorant of basic Wikipedia policy. I suggest Knulclunk try actually reading WP:NPOV, which states, 'Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV".' Born Gay (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Contested material
MishMich and Born Gay have removed material from the article saying that it is contested. I have looked and have not seen it being contested anywhere. Here is the "contested" material:
 * "Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed the importance of self-determination for the client, even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy"
 * They (Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations) recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation.
 * They (Ex-gay groups) help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation.
 * A survey of 882 people with unwanted same-sex attractions were asked five questions about their experience with conversion therapy. Most found it was helpful to them psychologically, spiritually, and sexually, and had a significant reduction in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies.
 * The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other.
 * There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies
 * There is extensive debate on the matter. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's being contested here on the talk page. You aren't discussing the specific points of disagreement over this material in a way that would make it possible to respond; much of it was there in the form of direct quotations, but the medical consensus section should not consist of direct quotations, it should be a summary. Please remember to sign your comments. Born Gay (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to be better at signing my comments. None of these sentences were direct quotations. Do you have any arguments with any of these statements that you removed? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Include links to older versions of the article if you want to settle what was what. Point to the versions you approve of, say what you liked about them, and I'll respond. Born Gay (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The change that contains most of my issues is this one:  I am okay with not quoting Nicolosi in the American medical consensus, but I still think it should be in the studies of conversion therapy.  What I liked about them is that had the statements that I listed above, mostly that the consensus emphasizes self-determination, that it accurately states that reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other, and is truthful that there is not sufficient evidence to say for sure that CT is either beneficial or harmful, it includes Nicolosi's study which was printed by the APA and quoted by the ACA, and it does not hide alternative therapies that can be useful for clients seeking to change their sexual orientation identity.  It also talks about the mainstream medical view of ex-gay groups, that it helps counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll consider the lead first. "Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed the importance of self-determination for the client, even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy." Maybe that should be in the article, but why in the lead? The mainstream view is mainly critical. I think the new APA report is clear on that, and they don't think much of the self-determination argument, either. "They recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation" is something that clearly doesn't belong in the lead - if it's true it's a minor detail that would belong somewhere else. With the ex-gay section: "They help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation" - that doesn't belong there, because it's sourced to the new APA report, and that's about SOCE, not conversion therapy. It has no real relevance, and it's inappropriate for the same reason including Jones and Yarhouse is inappropriate. Born Gay (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to the Nicolosi study, I agree it probably should be included in the studies of conversion therapy section. Mentioning it is not a problem if it's presented only as the view of its authors. Born Gay (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the American medical consensus section, "There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies, and there is extensive debate on the matter." The first part of that basically just repeats other things that were already there (such as "The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness"). The second part is irrelevant; the existence of debate is a different issue from the consensus. Debate is not part of a consensus. "Another report indicated that most of the participants found that the therapy was helpful to them, psychologically, spiritually, and sexually" - that part was completely inappropriate, as it wrongly presented Nicolosi as part of the consensus. Born Gay (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-determination is a major part of their view points, and is part of their code of ethics. I agree that they are critical of conversion therapy. I'm not arguing that.  All I am saying is that the client has the right to determine their own destiny in therapy. I also think it is important to be clear what it is exactly that the medical view objection is critical of.  It is specifically critical of conversion therapy, and not with anyone trying to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions.  Conversion therapy is ill-defined, as noticed, and since this article includes methods such as ex-gay groups which do not specifically try to change a person's sexual orientation, it is important to be clear on this issue.  That is why I wanted to include "They recommend other treatments that could help clients change their sexual orientation identity without promising them a change in sexual orientation."  That makes it clear that the disagreement is specifically with conversion therapy and there other related therapies that would be more appropriate.  It is perfectly reasonable for an article on a medical treatment to discuss alternative treatments for the same condition, especially with an ill-defined topic which some readers may erroneously believe is more comprehensive than it actually is.  It needs to be clear that there are suitable treatments that are not viewed critically by the medical department. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there extensive debate? As far as I can tell, most professionals dismiss it, and a few promote it, and while there is much lobbying and positioning, there's little debate.  Then, "even if the client wishes to pursue conversion therapy" - even is a word that alarms me when I see it, as it has a ring of POV about it for some reason.  This sentence seems synthetic, and I am not averse to saying something, but would prefer it is more accurate and less weasely.  The self-determination is important, but if we are making a point of that, it needs to be qualified as per the source - in the context of freedom from social, family, peer pressure, etc.  This is where you run into a problem.  To balance the statements as per WP:NPOV, you need to expand the content significantly to accurately report what the APA actually said, and that may well be undue for the lead, as it is about CT, not the APA's position on SOCE in detail. Mish (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source says there is an extensive debate. It says "Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media." I understand that the debate does not belong in the consensus.  Where does it belong?  Can we write a new section about the debate?  There used to be a debate section   Born Gay said it was poorly written.  Can we improve it and have a debate section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for that. Maybe the debate in the media?  That seems to be where much of this sort of thing takes place. Mish (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a need for a separate section on debate in professional literature. Some of the content in the debate section Joshuajohanson linked to should perhaps be restored, but as part of Studies of Conversion therapy, rather than as its own section. Born Gay (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the literature is best dealt with in Studies, but that this should be expanded to incorporated other academic writing (i.e., not just studies, but analyses and commentaries), That leaves the debate in the media, which is significant because what is actually quite an insignificant topic (given the small number of people who try to change their sexual orientation) has achieved wider coverage through the media (often in relation to the lobbying of Christian groups being disseminated through promotional outlets). Mish (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of whether there is extensive debate, I suggest you look at this article in the Guardian (UK) British therapists still offer treatments to 'cure' homosexuality which records that out of 1300 therapists, 55 were offering treatments for homosexuality, and 200 had attempted to change at least one person's sexual orientation. Its still a live issue in the UK amongst professionals. Hyper3 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The existence of extensive debate within the professional literature is sourced. Born Gay, where can I put that information? You saying I can't put it in the consensus and I can't have a separate section doesn't answer my question. Where can I put it? Also, since no one has objected to the statement "The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other", I'm putting it back in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The report in the Guardian shows that less than 5% of professionals actively offer this type of therapy, and of the 200 who have tried it at leas once, only 25% of them still offer it. That says nothing about a significant debate, it suggests that most therapists have little time for it, as reflected in statements by organisations like the BPS. As I said previously, this says more about the debate in the media. Mish (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that broadening the Studies of conversion therapy section, as Mish suggested, would be a good idea. To reply to Joshuajohanson: any published studies of or about conversion therapy should go in the Studies section; they shouldn't be a separate section. A section on media debate or controversy might be a good idea, but should be kept strictly separate from the academic stuff. Born Gay (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying to MishMich - you are implying a debate exists when there is equal support on both sides. A debate exists whilst there are still people to argue about it! For the sake of wikipedia, a discussion between majority and minority viewpoints is still a notable debate. The Wellcome Trust has put a lot of effort into launching a new website on the matter - this is still alive issue. Hyper3 (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it should be excluded, but handled for what it is, a minority view. That means it is not the consensus - the consensus is that it is a crock of shit.  It gets dealt with as a minority view, and as such the coverage needs to be weighted to reflect this - coverage mainly about the majority view (i.e. the consensus), with a small amount on the minority view.  This seems to have been about right, but recent edits and insertions have unbalanced the coverage in a way that do not accurately reflect this.  Putting stuff in the consensus about views that are not part of the consensus not only unbalances the article, it renders it inaccurate. Mish (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we agree on the issues of debate and weight, if not crocks. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of ex-gay treatment must not be removed
Joshuajohanson has recently removed all criticism of ex-gay treament from the ex-gay section. This edit, like the similar edits performed by Hyper3 ( and ), is unacceptable for several reasons. Neutral point of view requires that the extensive criticism of ex-gay treatment by published scholars and mainstream scientific organizations be represented here, and the principles that NPOV, and the related key policies of no original research and verifiability, are based upon, and which require fair treatment of all significant views, cannot be over-riden by consensus. And while there may be a group of editors here (consisting of Joshuajohanson, Knulclunk, and Hyper3) who don't like seeing ex-gay treatment criticized and want the criticism gone, you do not form a consensus by yourselves, and your not liking the criticism is not a reason why it should be removed. While the three of you can contest the criticism as much as you like, there is no basis in the content policies for keeping it out.

Many of the arguments that the editors on that side have offered have been preposterous. Knulclunk's complaints that the criticism is based upon a "POV" essay show a basic misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which states that "Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'", thus contradicting his position. Hyper3's comments in an edit summary that we should, "Take out "attack" aspects, and choose better studies, exemplary of their positions and with due weight", are likewise misinformed. He appears to thinks that only ex-gay studies that have not been demolished by scholarly criticism, as the Pattison's study was demolished, should be mentioned in the article, which reflects such a gross misunderstanding of NPOV as to require little comment. It is questionable whether there are any good ex-gay studies, so his comment betrays a lack of understanding of conversion therapy itself, as well as the content policies. Those ex-gay studies that might possibly be better than the study done by the Pattisons, like the Jones and Yarhouse study, are not within the scope of the article. Fortunately, judging from other comments here, a larger number of editors accept that criticism in some form is necessary. There may be disagreements over the details or the precise wording that should be used, but given that most of the opinions here have supported criticism, I am going to add some in a revised form.

In reply to Joshuajohanson's claim that my position that sources (such as the new APA report) that do not identify ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy should not be used to back up statements about ex-gay treatment is indefensible, I would observe that it's not such a simple issue. I am not absolutely sure that the new APA report should not be used as a source for the ex-gay section, but nor am I yet convinced that it should be. I would suggest a careful re-reading of WP:NOR, which states that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Since the new APA report is about SOCE, rather than conversion therapy, it does not relate directly to the subject of this article. If you want to properly source the kind of statements you want to add to that section, you would probably need other sources in addition to the APA report. While this issue may be disputed, WP:NOR is clear that one cannot use a source contrary to the intention of its authors, so the Jones/Yarhouse study, which directly states it isn't about conversion therapy, definitely cannot be used here in that manner. Born Gay (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, just because the Ex-gay article lacks such criticism is not a reason for such criticism being excised here - especially of the source relates to the article topic in conjunction with ex-gay ministries. I also agree that the recent report by the APA cannot be used in this way under this section - it goes to some pains to refer to ex-gay as distinct from conversion therapy, as it only refers to ex-gay support groups, ex-gay groups, ex-gay religious ministries, ex-gay ministries.  Placing the recent APA source as relating to ex-gay ministries would be WP:SYNTH. Mish (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be criticism of ex-gay SOCE. I don't like the particular source that Born Gay is using, because it focusses on impropriety, something that happens everywhere. I don't mind impropriety being mentioned (because, quite correctly, it is Christians who are claiming propriety, and I understand it is necessary to expose hypocrisy). We should choose a better example that is just as clearly critical. There should also be a pro ex-gay study, like Yarhouse, and then there should be some work to make sure due weight is in favour of the critical.Hyper3 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hyper3 is correct. The problem with the criticism that was being used focused on the impropriety of a small group. Examples of impropriety are universal. A broader study showing false assumptions of the ex-gay movement would be acceptable. Even better though, are sources expressing social concerns over the promotion of ex-gay ministry from both scientific and activist sources, as long as we note them as such. With this should be a definition of who supports ex-gay ministries and why. It is appropriate to explain that supporters of ex-gay ministry usually do not define there mission as "conversion therapy" from homosexual to heterosexual. But, to discuss ex-gay without acknowledging its supporters is misleading and disingenuous.
 * I disagree with Hyper3's desire for to expose hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is also universal and the need to play "gotcha" with Christians (even when they are claiming propriety) is unseemly. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is not the hypocrisy that is at issue, it is the lack of professionalism. If it is documented, and relevant, it stays in. Mish (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we took the view that "If it is documented, and relevant, it stays in" then much reverted editing would still be in the article. Giving undue weight to one view by quoting scandal, and then not including other views is problematic. From the above, we could agree a version of this section in a second if the references to impropriety were removed, and other equally relevant and critical sources included, together with the Yarhouse material. Hyper3 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Content
OK, so, before we start hacking away again...

This article is called Conversion therapy, and refers to Reparative therapy. Can we discuss a clear definition of what this article is about, and what is and is not to be covered.


 * Conversion therapy
 * Reparative therapy
 * Ex-gay ministries
 * Therapies that pre-date the coinage of the term

Clarifying this, and stating this in the lead, might help to resolve some of the disputed issues.


 * We take CT to cover with both issues here (otherwise we would need a separate article for RT). For an individual/organisation to be included, there must be documentary evidence that they claim to be (or are seen as) practicing CT/RT.
 * My understanding is that Ex-gay ministries (and religious conservatives) sometimes support CT/RT, so they should only be mentioned briefly in their support of CT/RT, not in context of CT/RT practice.
 * Therapists/therapies that pre-date the term should only be included if they have retrospectively been described as CT/RT, or of it has been documented that they have directly influenced contemporary CT/RT.
 * This all has to be sourced to relevant reliable sources (reliable books, papers, articles, etc. - rather than promotional websites etc.)

Can we have this discussion before resuming editing, and formulate a statement for the lead that covers this.Mish (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms, like all definitions, are slippery, and it will not be possible to put clear boundaries on it. Language develops, is used differently, becomes conflicted (and therefore some try to distance themselves from terms that clearly apply). "Reparative therapy" is an attempt to differentiate from conversion therapy, so that gives us a problem immediately. I think we should not consider "conversion therapy" to be a technical term but a descriptive term used in the context of sexual behaviour change. We should, therefore, allow any attempts to adapt sexual behaviour in the context of a "talking cure" to be described, and all parties who have opinions on it to be represented with due weight, both scientifically and sociologically. Otherwise, the article will need to demerge conversion therapy and reparative therapy... Hyper3 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They are slippery, so the way we do this is to refer to the best reliable sources, and report what they define it as. If they slip further, then that can be dealt with another time.  For now, what we need to do, is look at how it is defined by notable professional associations etc., and recognised professionals who use the term to describe what they do.Mish (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * this seems a good starting point: Mish (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the book you are suggesting. the problem is that this approach presumes a unitary approach to knowledge; it presumes that we will get better and better at integrating and agreeing what we think about a matter, especially if we tighten up our definitions. Your "best reliable sources" won't be mine. I think that knowledge is not unitary, suffers from all sorts of incommensurable divides, and therefore we have to negotiate across unclear boundaries. If we start with a book like that you suggest, then we will end up with an article like the book. You are never going to convince the Aesthetic Realism chap that his concerns fall outside of this article for example. More to the point, Wikipedia rules don't cover this. As long as editors stick to neutrality, weight and verifiability, it is allowed into the article. Therefore we record opinions that have divergent ethical standpoints; those that believe in a unitary approach to knowledge, and those that believe it is really all about power; those that operate from inside a tradition and those that believe they are using their autonomous rationality. There is no way around this, as this is the state of play within epistemology. Most people are satisfied that foundationalism is dead. In any case, as there is no shortage of paper. Hopefully we are giving people the tools to discover what the debate surrounding the topic is, many possible meanings within the debate, and the fact that like may other debates, it wanders around a number of possible subject areas. This is what I propose as a consensual approach, doomed as it is by what I have just said! Hyper3 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for a discussion about epistemology. This is an encyclopedia.  There are policies and guidelines that guide us in a way we don't need to concern ourselves with philosophical issues that are more relevant to articles in the encyclopedia that deal with those topics.  All we need to ask is 'Is Drescher a WP:RS', 'are the APAs WP:RS', 'what is the consensus and what is the minority view', fortunately these questions are easy to answer.  Whereas Foucauldian debates about knowledge and power are less easy, and best dealt with on the Michel Foucault article's talk page. Mish (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. OK. I don't think we will agree on a definition. I don't think we need to. Its not really anyone's business to create a definition, because wikipedia is about the wisdom of crowds. We should just stick to the rules, and let anyone play, who can justify that their contribution relates to the topic. It means being less certain that we know the truth, or even that the truth can be known. Hyper3 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on several points, it is a community resource, and there is no concept of truth that applies here - what is noteworthy, accurate and reliable, within the constraints of policy and guidelines, that applies. Mish (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be wrong to make up our own definition of conversion therapy, or to try to impose a single definition of conversion therapy on the article, when the fact is that there is no one definition. There are several different definitions in reliable sources, and the point of the terminology section is to explain them. The lead starts by explaining something about conversion therapy rather than by defining it, and includes the views of the two different APAs on the subject. Born Gay (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, it is not our definition that matters, it is how it is defined by reliable sources. In some other articles, terms (or phrases) are defined in the first sentence of the lead, and where there are a range of meanings, the various understandings are explained, as detailed in reliable sources as the first paragraph.  This would be appropriate for this article, as this could help to define and circumscribe the scope of the article for those who wish to edit the article, and diminish the potential for future misunderstandings. Mish (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD says that, "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific." In this case that is not possible, because of the multiple definitions in sources; giving only one would conflict with NPOV. Fortunately guidelines permit occasional exceptions, and this is a case when an exception is necessary. It's best for the opening sentence to side-step the issue of definition entirely and give the definitions of conversion therapy from reliable sources later in the lead. Born Gay (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we are agreed here, giving only one would be NPOV, but giving none is clearly problematic, so the better approach in this case would be by exception, and including all the definitions - where I disagree is that this would be better handled as the first paragraph. Mish (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the present-day inheritors of conversion therapy (reparative therapy, and the like) are noted as a minority position, and we give up trying to call it fringe, I am happy with the current majority view being clearly labelled as so. I know the last part of the sentence is completely obvious, but just so you know. Hyper3 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority position of all professional bodies (which regard CT as unproven and recommends members neither promote nor engage in). Mish (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that. But the minority position is still alive and well, many people are involved in it, receiving help and saying their has been a change in their sexuality. This page should portray this fact accurately, rather than pretending the debate is over, and everyone agrees. Hyper3 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I too am now finding it impossible to follow all the discussions, and despite my attempts to consolidate them, new discussions still get started while others are still open, making it difficult to keep contributing. It is disruptive.  One or two threads discuss conversion therapy and SOCE - these are not the same, conversion therapy is a SOCE, but SOCE incorporates several things, of which conversion therapy is but one.  You don't like Haldeman?  Tough - if you look at my Google Scholar search, he is the primary source, because he appears three times in the top-ten authors on the subject, and he is cited as much as all the others in the top ten put together.  So, if anything 50% of the relevant sections on studies and academia should be sourced to Haldeman - but the aren't. Mish (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism take II
Moved from article:
 * The Aesthetic Realism Foundation conducted therapy sessions from 1971 to 1990 to try to help gays become straight. They published two books and one short film on the subject, and purchased ads in major newspapers promoting their supposed success. in 1990 the Foundation stopped offering its treatment, citing the spirit of anger surrounding the subject that it didn't wish to be involved with , though critics contend that the Foundation was forced to abandon their program because it wasn't working.

To begin with, the linked Aesthetic Realism Foundation does not remotely describe the organization discussed here, so that needs to go. The only critical source is a cult-outing site, and while I have no doubt that ARF was a cult, this is not the best sourcing. The other source is a promotional site by the Executive Director (founder?), self described as a "consultant and poet" - completely inappropriate as a source. I'd prefer to see that this was more mainstream, and had at least some significant impact - and some better sourcing. Did this poet have any coverage by anyone remotely neutral and a significant RS? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to repeat my suggestion for handling this in a more modest way:
 * Aesthetic Realism's conversion therapy was mostly in the '70s and '80s, so I'm thinking that this could go just after the Primal Scream material. Something like, "Other notable non-medical therapies that promised change included Aesthetic Realism and vegetotherapy." 
 * I think it's worth including, but it doesn't need a whole paragraph. Also, we shouldn't use self-published sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then find a neutral source, not a self published one. That's the point, Wil. There is nothing else. Two self published sources. In which case, no we don't include it. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd seen other objections to the material. As I mentioend above, I've got xeroxes of some sources, I just need to dig them up.   Will Beback    talk    23:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unsourced seems to indicate not terribly notable; that may be what you saw otherwise. I would be interested in your sourcing; certainly what's been provided thus far is woefully inadequate. The notability of the organization remains in question. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Their notability is due mostly to two issues: one is their "change therapy", and the other is for their complaints about not getting more attention. They used to picket newspaper editors at their homes, offices, and events with signs talking about the "right to be heard". However their protests did little to bring them more attention. So yes, the group's overall notability is questionable, but that's a matter for that page.   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Their overall notability is a question for that article. Was their particular groupsessionstuff notable within the context of conversion therapy or reparative therapy? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. In the 1970s, it was among the most prominent therapies that promised chnage from homosexuality, from what I can tell.   Will Beback    talk    00:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, then your sourcing would be very nice to have, good luck in locating that. Hopefully others will be able to locate something more substantial as well. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

Why can't we write this article according to wikipedia policy? Hyper3 (talk)


 * This is not an article about a minority view of conversion therapy. It's an article about conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you say so? Please give evidence for this. Hyper3 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check the title of the article: "Conversion therapy." Born Gay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What should the title be, if it were an article about the minority view that sexual orientation can be changed by therapy? Other than this, I presume. Hyper3 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is really pointless. An article called conversion therapy is about conversion therapy. It isn't about pro-conversion therapy viewpoints. Born Gay (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to you there are no articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, they are all just about whatever the article is about. You don't want to talk about it. But this is an article about a minority viewpoint, and as such it should conform to the policy above, and it is therefore OK to give weight to the views in question. If not, then we need to start a page on the particular minority viewpoint that sexual orientation can be changed - what would that be called? Hyper3 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't ever said that there are no articles specifically about minortity viewpoints. I am saying that this is definitely not one of them. An article about pro-conversion therapy viewpoints would probably be an unacceptable POV fork. BG 03:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jones/Yarhouse
In brief: This is not a study, but a book, written by two authors who are presenting a strong American conservative Christian POV - Jones also wrote books subtitled "God's Design for Sex" and "Why God Cares About Sex" and Yarhouse co-wrote two books both sub-titled "A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal". The source being used is from Christianity Today, a partisan source. The "study" cherry picked participants (they wanted 300, had to settle for 98, and lost 25 of them along the way), and then skewed findings to the point that homosexual men who simply weren't currently in a relationship at the time were counted in the "cured" column, which skewed the reported "ex-gay" rate. This is, I repeat, not a study. A study is conducted by impartial professionals, who take care to begin with a broad representative sampling, who utilize strict methods, and report their findings without fear or favor in a professional publication. This book is a soapbox for the cause. Born Gay has added to these reasons to omit the book that the two authors themselves do not characterize their methods as conversion therapy and that they regard their study of ex-gay treatment as having no direct relevance to conversion therapy. I have asked several times why it is thought this should be included, and am still awaiting a clear response. Does anyone have a clear argument for inclusion, or may we lay this matter to bed? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Halderman study has the same problems, especially in light of the source used, Gonsiorek and Weinrich. They have a history of publishing titles about gays and public policy, like Sexual Landscapes: Why We Are What We Are, Why We Love Whom We Love... also a soapbox source. Unlike KillerChihuahua, I do not oppose their inclusion, as long as their partisan source is acknowledged.
 * The criticism uses the term "suspect testimonials", which many readers will interpret the as POV or the source as dubious WP:RS.The language is improved by including Halderman's name, but it would be nice to know who this guy is and why we should trust his intemperate opinion. There is also a POV problem with the conclusion "...data were unconvincing, founded on a poorly described treatment program that used ill-defined constructs." This is a conclusion that could be deduced from any reader, so to tack it onto the end of the paragraph seems unnecessary and agenda pushing. The recent edits acknowledging Halderman is better, but I still don't know why I should trust him any more that any other motivated activist.
 * To take KillerChihuahua's concern one step further, should we eliminate any source that has a taint of partisanship? I suspect that would thin this article out significantly.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the Jones/Yarhouse book, and "other stuff has the same problems" is not a reason for inclusion, thanks. If you think the Halderman content should also be removed, please feel free to start a section devoted to Halderman. I have asked for reasons to include and your post has "otherstuff" and a straw man. This is not helpful; it is also not providing a reason to include.
 * I repeat myself: Does anyone have a clear argument for inclusion, or may we lay this matter to bed? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I first removed mention of this book more than five months ago, and that this produced no controversy at all at the time. BG 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The book was presented in August at the APA convention. It was presented under the symposium Sexual Orientation and Faith Traditions  Here is the abstract the APA gives.  And the one NARTH gives.  It does seem to have a lot of errors, but somehow the APA still allowed them to present it.  If the APA seems to think it is significant to present, it seems to me to be significant to present here, however, because there seems to be a lot of errors and criticism, I do not think it is extremely important one way or the other. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Point: the APA link you give is the abstract presented by the presenters - not the APA. Has the book been cited in any reputable literature? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The abstract still was published by the APA, on apa.org. I haven't seen it been cited.  It was only presented at the APA last month.  I am okay with whatever you do. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These links show that the book has been discussed, but they don't establish that it has any special relevance specifically to conversion therapy. BG 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this the 2007 book? It has only been cited by five people, according to Scholar, which is pretty thin - and does not appear amongst the first ten articles on the subject. While it is about ex-gays, the text only includes 7 uses of the phrase "conversion therapy", either skeptically (p.74), within quotes containing others' use of the phrase (p.93, p.98, p.104), in criticism of its critics (p.378, p.382), or referring to a favourable study (p.383). The other five instances are in titles appearing within the bibliography. Mish (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide view
This article focuses mainly on Europe and USA. The stance of China and India is not mentioned, and the WHO stance is not mentioned in the intro. It has been argued that is because there is less material available. I would argue that just because these countries do not have as large of an internet presence, does not mean that their views should be ignored. Many countries follow the WHO stance, and it would be a disservice to them not to ignore them just because they don't have as many sources available on the internet in English. We know what the WHO stance is, and that should be clear in the introduction. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason countries don't have such a presence is because when they use languages other than English, and most of us who use the English encyclopedia use English, and do searches on Google etc., it returns English hits, not other languages. Some countries are less open than the USA or other English-speaking countries.  I am concerned with English-language sources for this encyclopedia, and those are what I get, if there is information in English on other countries, then provided it is WP:RS and conforms to WP:NPOV, then these will be used.  I agree though, some summary would be good, if English language sources can be found.  Homosexuality in China might be a place to start. Mish (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There used to be information, but it was removed. It has been argued that we should focus on America in the lead, which I disagree with.  I just wanted to check here to see if it was okay to add the international information to the text and the WHO position into the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for inserting this into the lead, as the lead is a summary of the article. The place to put this would be in the article, and unless there is some substantive difference between ICD.10 and DSM.IV-TR, I don't see what the point of citing the WHO in the lead would be.  If you have further information beyond ICD.10 on what the WHO position is, and sources, I'd be interested to see what the WHO position on conversion therapy is, as I've not turned up anything and was unaware they had announced a position.  The only reference I can find is under ICD.10 code F66.1, of which part of the diagnosis for that psychiatric condition is that individuals may seek to change their sexual orientation (no mention of what the treatment for the condition is, nor mention of CT specifically). Mish (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article focuses mainly on Europe and the US because that is what sources dealing with conversion therapy mainly focus on, not China or India. The best solution would probably be to put the information in other articles and then link to it here. BG 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no good reason to completely exclude China and India. The focus might be on Europe and the US, but China and India deserve a mention.  You have also provided no good reason for excluding WHO from the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have sources on CT in India and China, could you bring them to the talk page, along with what you are intending to say about them. Mish (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To reply to Joshuajohanson: please see WP:LEAD. It explains that the lead is a summary of the main points in the article, and that things deserve mentioning there in rough proportion to their space in the article. The WHO's position is not one of the main points of the article, it is mentioned only briefly in the article, and does not deserve to be in the lead. Asserting without argument that China and India deserve to be mentioned is not really helpful; it would be better to simply link to the information here rather than to go into detail. BG 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)