Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 17

Definition of Conversion therapy
The lead of this article states that, " "Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") is pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation." This convoluted definition of conversion therapy appears to be the invention of a Wikipedia editor. There are some sources that call conversion therapy pseudo-scientific, some that say it aims to change sexual orientation, some that say it purports to chance sexual orientation, but not one that defines it as "pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation". The definition violates basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:NOR (no original research) and WP:SYNTH. It amounts in fact to a form of POV pushing. Since numerous different definitions of conversion therapy exist in reliable sources, the sensible thing to do would be to pick one of them, and drop silly, made-up definitions such as the one currently used in this article.

I can understand why someone might think it was a good idea for Wikipedia to have its very own definition of conversion therapy, but please consider the sort of problems it creates. If you insist that conversion therapy is therapy that "purports" to change sexual orientation, would a therapist who simply claimed that his therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation but made no claims that it actually achieves this in practice be practicing conversion therapy or not? Under the current definition used in the article, I suppose the answer to that question would have to be no. Isn't it obvious, then, that the definition is unreasonable and confusing? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pick a source, any source - or any dozen. Please note this is not a Google search, this is scholarly articles listing (via Google). KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hebradaeum, this seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLUE. We probably have a hundred sources on this article that calls it pseudoscience and a hundred sources they say it attempts to change sexual orientation. This is not a case of original synthesis, this is a short summary of what hundreds of sources say. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Not one single source says that "Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") is pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation." A Wikipedia editor made that up. It's POV, and a perfect example of synthesis of different sources. I note that you absolutely ignore my argument about how misleading and unhelpful it is to add "purports" to the definition of conversion therapy. What makes me think I won't get a meaningful response? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's POV, what point of view is being endorsed? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, the APA says they are promoted to change sexual orientation. Jeffry Ford says it purports to change it. International Society of Psychiatric and Medical Health Nurses says it's aimed at eliminating homosexual desires. Elizabeth Hish describes it as methods to treat and cure individuals of homosexual proclivities. Douglas Haldeman doesn't cleanly define the term, but makes it clear he's discussion attempts to change sexual orientation. Based only on the sources cited for the first sentence, it's clear that saying the therapy tries to change sexual orientation is strongly backed by sources (what exact wording to use is being discussed below). All of the sources also say that proponents of conversion therapy distort science, and Hish and Haldeman even titled their articles "The Pseudoscience of Conversion Therapy". So, the sources also strongly support the pseudoscience claim. And that's just the five sources attached to the first sentence. Calling it a pseudoscience that tries to change sexual orientation is not at all original synthesis, since all of these articles say that in slightly different words. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both views should be represented. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact words of the lead are, "Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") is pseudo-scientific therapy that aims and purports to change sexual orientation." Synthesis? Yes, since no source actually says this. If the APA say "aims" rather than "purports", that's (presumably) because they're well aware that conversion therapists don't, in fact, always or even generally claim that their therapy actually succeeds in effecting change of someone's sexual orientation. The "purports" part is just plain wrong, even if Jeffrey Ford does say that. You should read Weinrich's review of Nicolosi's book, something you obviously haven't done. As you don't seem to be interested in portraying conversion therapy in a neutral and accurate way, or even in discussing this subject properly, I refuse to discuss anything with you any further. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Our definition accurately summarizes what those five sources describe. You seem to be implying that we must quote a source exactly. This is inherently ludicrous and has no bearing on any Wikipedia policy or guideline ever written. Could you specifically state what is in our definition that isn't in the sources? Pseudoscience is there - trying the change sexual orientation is there. What are we adding, exactly? Knowing what we're adding that the sources don't say could allow us to refine this definition. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia's definition, not used anywhere except on Wikipedia, twists the intention of those sources, and misrepresents them (whether deliberately or through simple ignorance is not important). The American Psychological Association's definition - therapy that aims to change sexual orientation - is clear and precise. It includes no implication that conversion therapists claim that conversion therapy actually is effective, because the APA must know full well that conversion therapists generally are responsible enough to admit that there is no guarantee that their therapy will automatically be effective in any given case. Adding "purports" implies that conversion therapists claim that conversion therapy does actually achieve its goals, which is untrue. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article actually says aims to change sexual orientation right now. I don't understand what the problem is. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Purports
I've agreed with the removal, but I'd actually prefer rewording to outright removal. I think the way it was worded it could be misread as that CT is actually effective. I have, unfortunately, no ideas at the present time for better verbiage and open the floor to suggestions. FWIW, if consensus is to keep the previous "purports" verbiage, I will not quibble. I do not have that strong an objection to it. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some sources use "purpots". For example, ref 5 http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=2002-04977-010.-- В и к и  T  12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think my preferred word would be "claims", as in "...a therapy that claims to change sexual orientation." This makes it clear that it is only what it claims to do, without implying in any way that it actually works. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like "claims." KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's seriously misleading and inaccurate. Conversion therapists (including Joseph Nicolosi) are usually careful to say simply that their therapy aims at changing sexual orientation, and don't guarantee that it will automatically be effective in any given case, which is what "purports" and "claims" both imply. See James Weinrich's review of one of Nicolosi's books: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812731?uid=3738776&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101432891121, which covers this usefully. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing this point. The common sense thing to do would be to use the definition employed by the American Psychological Association ("therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation"), which is simple, straightforward, and neutral, but I don't expect to see it happen. Too many editors here seem to have no interest in describing this subject neutrally. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "claims" is the best word here, too. That avoids any implication that it "works". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I wrote above? Conversion therapists don't generally "claim" that conversion therapy "works", if what that means is that it 100% changes someone's sexual orientation. They don't even claim it's necessarily even partially effective in any given case. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims to do something and claims to always do something are two completely different things. You sure seem to enjoy the strawman argument, since a claim to do something has never meant a 100% guarantee before. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the review of Nicolosi's book? I doubt it, because had you done so, you'd have noticed that Nicolosi doesn't claim ever to have accomplished total change of someone's sexual orientation ("As the latest in a long list of books which offer therapy to men who wish to change a homosexual orientation to heterosexual, it sets another precedent in that the author is apparently the first to admit that this change is not possible"). As you obviously have no interest in approaching this subject neutrally or accurately, I have no interest in discussing this matter with you any further. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that if we restore the content replacing "purports" with claims" the sentence will read "...aims and claims..." and that's a little too Dr Seuss sounding. We need to split those somehow. I'm ok with covering the claims in a later sentence. We could add "claims have been made..." but that's not particularly good phrasing. Ideas? KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's illogical and foolish in either version. Obviously if something "claimed" to do something, doing it would be it's objective. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - isn't changing sexual orientation the objective of conversion therapy? Maybe I don't understand your comment. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it telling that you avoided responding to my comments above, where I pointed to a review that notes that conversion therapists acknowledge that their therapy isn't necessarily effective in changing sexual orientation. Obviously, this fact means that the "purports" part of the arbitrary definition of conversion therapy Wikipedia is using is just plain wrong. That you and other politically correct Wikipedia editors just don't care about this doesn't come as a great surprise to me. Your lack of interest in depicting conversion therapy accurately was why I discontinued this discussion weeks ago, and I make these comments now against my better judgment. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "purports" has not been in the article for a week. What are we even arguing about? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The missing section
This article is missing a big component of conversion therapy - the cultural attitudes and response. No article on placenta would be complete without mentioning that some parents bury it and plant a tree over it after the baby is born, no article on heart is complete without mentioning as believed to be a center of emotion, etc. For conversion therapy, there are entire fictional works on it, and this deserves some discussion. Off the top of my head, But I'm a Cheerleader is a film entirely about conversion therapy, and I've been told that Lady Gaga's Born this Way is in a large part a response to it. These deserve mention. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV
This article has been, and continues to be, blatantly unbalanced and POV--filled with unencyclopedic and pejorative terminology and almost hostile to the subject of the article. The "pray away the gay" redirect apparently received consensus, but it is absurd. The very first sentence of the lede uses the word "pseudo-scientific." Advocates are described as "fundamentalist" and "right-wing." And, most importantly, much of the article is devoted to critical comments made about conversion therapy by individuals and organizations that oppose it, while very little time is spent on the individuals and organizations that practice and support it. There are more examples, but I will stop there. I have attempted to tag the article and to make certain changes, but was rapidly reverted. There is no excuse for any editor who is operating in good faith to try to justify the tone of this article. It is completely unworthy of the encyclopedia--but the POV-pushers will probably make sure that it stays that way. Oh well. I tried. 184.74.22.184 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pseudoscience, that why the word is there. There isn't a single scientific organization on Earth that regards conversion therapy as valid science. The advocates are almost always fundamentalists of some kind. Since no scientific or social group considers homosexuality a disorder or a hazard, the only opposition is from those with a religious objection. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Who gets to decide what is considered a scientific group? The people who are doing the therapy are typically licensed and have studied both counselling and psychology. Why is it that their credentials suddenly don't count. The way to make this article NPOV is to present the therapy in the terms that those conducting it are using, with appropriate references to their position papers and publications, and include a section that discusses the criticism from other perspectives. The fact that someone calls it pseudo-science does not make it so, nor does the fact that someone calls it science. Our job as ENCYCLOPEDIA editors is not to make judgement call son what is pseudoscience or not... rather we are here to report what experts have said. Some people who would qualify as experts have called this a science, others have called it a pseudo-science. That is what the article should reflect. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as an example of birthers, we don't say that some people think Obama was born in Hawaii, we says that he was born in Hawaii. We don't say that some people think planes were flown into buildings on 9-11, we say the planes were flown into buildings (per 9/11 Truth movement). For the same reason, we don't say that some people call it pseudoscience, we simply call it pseudoscience. A real science is called that even by those who don't practice it, scientists who disagree with string theory still consider it science. Here, the only people calling it science are proponents, and even some of them don't claim it actually works. If we imply in any way that this is valid science, we've let the fringe viewpoint take over. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the birthers article is a great example of what I would expect. It doesn't make a critical statement about the various theories until the "Commentary and criticism" section, rather it neutrally presents what those holding the view state (without endorsing or denying the claims). It doesn't label those who hold it as "fundamentalists" or "right-wing" or anything like that. It simply says "This is what some people have theorized" with sources pointing to the sources that support what people have said. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's some more relevant examples: Scientific racism, MMR vaccine controversy, Lunar effect, and Cryptozoology. Scientific racism and cryptozoology both explicitly say pseudoscience in the first sentence, MMR says scientific misconduct, so only Lunar effect doesn't have the term (and it probably should). And if the people believing in conversion are fundamentalists and right-wing (which they are), we should say that, otherwise we are biased in favor of conversion therapy. All of the claims that you think are biased are very well sourced. Find me a left-wing group that endorses conversion therapy and we can talk about that right-wing thing. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you have identified 4 other articles that probably have POV issues. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is - and this is, probably more than anything else, what's caused some to perceive Wikipedia as liberally biased - that there's a certain line you have to draw beyond which you simply discount certain points of view. Yes, definitely we should not be biased in describing those points of view; but a fundamental truth in the pursuit of summarizing human knowledge is that there are some points of view you just have to say are incorrect. Obviously you don't say it with a lot of evidence to back you up, but that's what we have in this case. It's like when someone calls into an NPR show and says something that's crazy, or incorrect to the point of risking slander, and the host just has to say "No, nope, that's not true." So this article has an obligation to describe the views of the gay conversion movement objectively, just as the Flat Earth theory article does.  But it most definitely does not have an obligation to present their views as remotely accurate. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is deeply stupid to describe conversion therapy as pseudo-science. Deeply stupid. You would describe something as pseudo-science only if there were no chance of it ever accomplishing its goals - like a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons in principle, based on the known laws of physics, why it's not possible to build a perpetual motion machine, so it's fair to call it pseudo-science. In contrast, there is no reason in principle why it would necessarily be impossible to develop a method to change sexual orientation. Even if no method to date is effective, that obviously doesn't show that no effective method will ever be possible. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. As long as the current "science" is completely ineffective and widely condemned by mental health professionals, it is indeed a pseudoscience. It's possible that one could find a practical application of phrenology. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and until and unless effective methods of conversion therapy can be shown to exist, their hypothetical existence has no bearing on the current ineffective methods. Furthermore, it's not "deeply stupid" to describe conversion therapy as pseudo-science; it's also not "deeply stupid" not to. There's no need to belittle your opponents, and doing so will accomplish nothing other than making people angry. —  Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Reparative" "Therapy"
Instead of a lame edit war over quote marks, let's actually discuss this. Placing a word in quotes to imply ungenuineness is known as scare quotes, for those unaware. In my opinion, any use of scare quotes is editorializing, and we shouldn't do it, even if reliable sources do, but if everyone else disagrees, we can keep them. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just discussed my view on this here. To summarize: I believe quotes should be used, with discretion, to identify pseudoscientific and fringe terminology. As discussed with Belchfire, it seems reasonable to do this only when it is plausible that a reader might be confused, and misled to believe that the terminology is recognized as valid in Wikipedia's voice. This interpretation falls within MOS guidelines, but is ultimately left to editorial judgement.


 * Also, in case the OP was not aware, the notice of this discussion was posted on a blocked sock puppet's page. - MrX 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think calling it pseudoscience in the first sentence makes it clear that everything proponents say should be taken with a grain of salt, so the scare quotes aren't really necessary. and oops about the sock Ego White Tray (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with MrX. We do not want the Wikipedia reader to think that fringe therapy is considered mainstream therapy by stating it plainly in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. The question is, is it called reparative therapy or "reparative" therapy? And the rather simple answer is that it's called reparative therapy, but sometimes referred to in scare quotes. There are two arguments here, both about objectivity:
 * It is non-neutral to say reparative therapy without qualifying any "reparation" as false, as this amounts to the encylopedia's endorsing its validity
 * It is non-neutral to say "reparative" therapy, as this amounts to the encyclopedia endorsing its criticism.
 * However, the former argument falls, since all we're saying is that it's called "'reparative' therapy"; we are not saying that it is reparative (i.e., that homosexuality is something that needs to be repaired, nor that the therapy is effective in "repairing" the condition). Scare quotes pretty much always indicate an opinion - check out this site for the most pitiful over-use of them, for instance -; using a term, on the other hand, never has to be anything more than using a term, especially if you simply say that that's the name it's given, not that that's the right name. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 05:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence comes right out and says "pseudo-science" in plain English. How much more commentary do we need to pile on top of that?  The quotes are a very clear violation of the MoS.   Belch fire - TALK  05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think both arguments put above are wrong. We should not be trying to endorse or oppose support or criticism by the use or non-use of quotes.

May I therefore suggest a slightly different approach. If the term in question were an entirely non-controversial one would we put it in quotes?

If 'no' then we should not put 'reparative ' in quotes because to do so would be seem to criticise its usage. If 'yes' then we should have quotes because to do otherwise would be just be wrong and might seem to suggest support the term's validity.

I think the answer to my question is 'no', if the term were non-controversial we would not use quotes, so we should not use quotes in the article. If anything else needs to be said it should be said in words rather than punctuation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a nice theory, but it's made superfluous by the already-existing style guideline WP:BADEMPHASIS. The people who want quotes have not a leg to stand on - the term is already bolded and that's all the emphasis it gets.  The only reason we're even having this discussion is the WP:IDHT position of certain editors.   Belch fire - TALK  11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is not emphasis that the quote supporters want. They want to show lack of endorsement of the term by WP.  I suggest doing this by words as:


 * Conversion therapy (also known by it proponents as reparative therapy) Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Emphasis" is a catch-all. What they want is to use Wikipedia's voice to express disapproval, contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  Semantics aside, the quotes run afoul of the guidelines in the Manual of Style.  Your proposal has the correct, neutral formatting, but the word "proponents" is a non-starter.   Belch fire - TALK  11:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with 'proponents'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To explain further, 'proponents' is an completely neutral term, meaning only 'those who argue in favour of'. There are proponents of both good and bad things and the term is not pejorative or judgmental in any way. To say that proponents use the term is strictly factual.  The only acceptable argument for not adding proponents would be the existence of a good reliable source showing that the term is in general usage in mental health by those who oppoose the process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support "also known by it proponents as" or "also called by proponents", in case it was not clear by my comment below. Killer Chihuahua 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reparative is in quotes because although therapy is recognized by mental health professionals. "reparative therapy" is not. It is a made up therapy which seeks to repair something which is presumed broken (else it would not need repair) and currently being homosexual is not considered a condition by the authorative bodies in mental health. Those who promote it may call it reparative, but that's not a recognized mental health term. Ergo, quotes. They aren't "scare quotes" they are quote quotes. Whether or not consensus is to keep or lose the quotes, you need to drop the silliness of calling them scare quotes. We should place "reparative therapy" in quotes instead, to clarify it is the entire phrase which is sometimes called that. To me this would make more sense. Reparative is only a term we need to quote instead of use in Wikipedia's own voice when it is teamed with therapy; neither word on it's own needs to be quoted. Killer Chihuahua 11:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "reparative" appears 22 times in the prose of this article. Only 2 of those occurrences are in quotes, and one of those is in the middle of a longer quoted sentence.  It looks to me like the real reason for the quotes is that they appear in the first sentence of the article.   Belch fire - TALK  12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment really doesn't have anything to do with mine, so I'm not sure why you put it as a reply to mine. Killer Chihuahua 12:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Killer, I cannot see why you cannot understand Belchfire's reply. You are saying that the word 'reparative' is always a quotation, I am not sure from whom, so it should go in quotes.  In that case it should always go in quotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand his post. It simply doesn't have a thing to do with what I said. You, OTH, clearly didn't understand MY post. I never said that. Killer Chihuahua 12:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment is a direct response to yours. You offered a reason for the quotes, and I offered an alternate reason based on what I see in the article: the quotes are there because it's the first sentence of the article and they're prominently placed around a bold word.  If the reason for the quotes is as you say, then why is the term used an additional 20 times throughout the article without them?
 * Furthermore, the way you explain it, this is a textbook example of scare quotes: "Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept." Which is pretty much what you just explained.
 * Per the MoS:"Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source."
 * So if these aren't scare quotes, who is being quoted? When you have an unattributed quotation, you're really speaking in Wikipedia's voice.   Belch fire - TALK  12:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Those who promote it may call it reparative, but that's not a recognized mental health term. Ergo, quotes. They aren't "scare quotes" they are quote quotes." I.e., Your MOS claim is a red herring. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot quote an unspecified group of people. The way to deal with this is to do as I suggest above and put:
 * Conversion therapy (also known by it proponents as reparative therapy) Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that is the only way to deal with it, it certainly is one way to deal with it, and one which I would not disagree with using. However, now that proponents have popularized the term, I'm afraid it would be "proponents and those criticizing those proponents" but I suppose we could simply ignore that as then we could go down the rabbit hole of "proponents and those criticizing those proponents as well as Wikipedia talking about both the preceding groups." (this is supposed to be humor, for those who are overly concerned about my pedantry.) Killer Chihuahua  13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You got it backwards, Belchfire. You cite "to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept." but I'm saying it is not "not the way" it is the way. They would say it is reparative, but it isn't. If I were to say something as they would not have it, I would say "bogus therapy" not "reparative therapy."  The quote is indeed as they would express it, it is in fact exactly as they do express it. Killer Chihuahua  13:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is bogus or not we do not indicate our thoughts on a word by putting it in quotes. That is exactly what 'scare quotes' are and they are discouraged by the MOS. Why not just use words?Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is twice now in less than an hour you've completely misread me. Please read more carefully. We are NOT voicing our view. I don't know how fucking clear I can make it. I was refuting Belchfire's argument that we were using scare quotes because we're supposedly misrepresenting the views of reparative therapy proponents. We're not, but neither are we expressing our views. We're qioting. Killer Chihuahua 13:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly the use of abusive language does not make you any more right. As Little green rosetta explains below, if they are just quotes then it should be clear whom you are quoting.  Of course it is not clear whom you are quoting because you are not quoting anyone, you are using the quotes to indicate disapproval or disagreement with the terminology.  That is scare quotes whether you admit it or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * an example not on Wikipedia: Note that "reparative therapy" (not  "reparative" therapy) is in quotes, to show it is being quoted from the proponents, as opposed to in Psychology Today's own voice. PT used the quotes in the subtitle and the first sentence, then omitted them throughout the article. Once they'd made it clear the phrase was quoted, they didn't see the need to belabor the point that it isn't a genuine mental health term. Killer Chihuahua  13:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a strongly anti-CT article using the term in a slightly different way, they say ' something called “reparative therapy” '. It is not our house style to  indicate disapproval or lack of support by using quotes, why not use words as I have suggested.  This makes it perfectly clear that the term is only used by proponents of the process but in a neutral way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I've said already, they are not scare quotes, to "indicate disapproval" or for any other reason. they are simply quotes. End of story. Please cease this fruitless line of argument; you are debating that which I have not said and indeed disagree with. Killer Chihuahua 13:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so if they're just quote-quotes, then who's being quoted? Because if you're not going to attribute the quote to somebody, then you aren't using the quote marks for their allowed purpose - you're using them for some other reason, and that's what's getting you into trouble.  "Indicating disapproval" is an artificial constraint, by the way.  Scare quotes can have other applications besides merely indicating disapproval.
 * You keep insisting that they aren't scare quotes, then you go on to describe a purpose for the quote marks that fits the definition of scare quotes. I'm beginning to suspect cognitive bias.   Belch fire - TALK  14:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, who are you talking to? Because I have been repeatedly saying they are quote quotes, not scare quotes. I have never described any other purpose.YOu must be confused. Killer Chihuahua 14:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the quotes are "quote quotes", then it should be obvious to the reader who is being quoted. As the text currently stands, this is not the case. If it is PT then this should be added with a citation or inline text.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is not PT. They, like us, are quoting the proponents. That's why they have it in quotes. If it were their term, it would not be in quotes in their article. Killer Chihuahua 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For at least the third time:  Who are they ? You keep insisting this is a quote, but you refuse to attribute it to anybody.  If it's not attributed, then it's being stated in Wikipedia's voice, and that's a NPOV problem.
 * You also keep insisting that the sources (whoever they are... you won't say) use the quotes in order to denote a lack of legitimacy (which is the very definition of scare quotes)... then you turn around and insist that they aren't scare quotes. It's enough to give a person cognitive whiplash.  Belch fire - TALK  04:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well now we have quotes, attributed to proponents. But we also have the quote in bold. That is double emphasis and a violation of the MOS. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See BOLDTITLE


 * "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold:
 * Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra."


 * Also, we need to keep in mind that the manual of style is a guideline, not a set of laws. In other words, you can't violate a manual of style; you can only choose to follow it, or not. - MrX 19:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So which is it, a title or a quote?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the quotes as it obviously is not a quotation in the normal sense of the word and we do not need quotes and attribution, as per my suggestion. Everything is now clear, and neutrally expressed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why can't it be both?
 * @Martin Hogbin - You shouldn't revert to your preferred version while this is still in discussion. - MrX 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are mututally exclusive. A title doesn't need quotes with attribution.  I would be personally ok with getting rid of the bold OR the quotes and leaving the "by proponents" for either version.    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think bold, without quotes and adding "by proponents" is the frontrunner proposal at this time. Let's take straw poll to see if there is some consensus for that, so we can move on to more interesting editing:

Straw Poll
Should the first sentence read:
 * Conversion therapy (also called reparative therapy by its proponents) are pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change sexual orientation.

 Support 
 * - MrX 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noleander (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that things are clarified, Ego White Tray (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * support with grammar tweaks mentioned below. Insomesia (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose 

 Abstain 
 * As opposed to saying what, exactly? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the current 1st sentence: ""Conversion therapy" (also known as "reparative therapy") are pseudo-scientific treatments  ..." --Noleander (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reparative Therapy - Consensus needed for changes
I have reinstated the December 6 version of the first sentence per STATUSQUO, which was the consensus version for almost three weeks before a blocked sock puppet changed it. We need to have a new consensus before making further changes. - MrX 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would anyone mind if I revised the current version in the article, as well as the proposed version here, to be grammatically correct? I was thinking is a type of pseudo-scientific treatment instead of are pseudo-scientific treatments. This would, of course, create the new problem of it being unclear as to what it's a type of (pseudo-scientific treatment in general, or pseudo-scientific treatment that aims to change sexual orientation specifically - the former being the correct one), so it might also be wise to change treatment that aims to to treatment, aiming to or treatment, with the aim of.
 * I'm pretty sure I'll support the proposed version here, but I'd like to clear up some cosmetic issues before deciding. Normally I'd just wait for the change to be implemented, and fix it then, but I'm afraid that might be seen as editing against consensus, and if this article has one more edit war it might wind up with an ARBPSEUDO restriction. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 05:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The grammar definitely needs to be tweaked. I don't think the intended meaning should be changed though; that conversion therapy is a range of treatments that aim to change sexual orientation. I think that adding a range and changing aims to aim might best address the grammar issue. As far as that goes, I think that the entire sentence could be revised to reflect the SNOWBALL consensus evident above. - MrX 12:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be kind enough to change it back now to the version above for which there is a fairly clear consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've attempted to fix the grammar as well. - MrX 15:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, it looks good now. I will now leave you chaps to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

NARTH repudiates ...
I've removed the following for sourcing concerns: "NARTH repudiates aversive techniques and stresses therapeutic efforts toward growing more fully into what it considers one's biologically appropriate gender identity."

I think these primary sources don't quite support what we're reporting in Wikipedia's voice. I will post to the RSN for input. Insomesia (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there's room to re-word the first clause of that sentence, but Hamilton's statement certainly appears unambiguous: "NARTH encourages all of its members to abide by the highest standards of ethicality, which by definition would exclude any form of aversive therapy." That's a "straightforward, descriptive statement", as specifically allowed in WP:PRIMARY.  You sure this isn't a just wee touch of WP:IDHT?  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's at the RSN so lets assume good faith for the time being, thanks. Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement in question is not using WP's voice. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the original & consensus approved statement challenged by Insomesia and tweaked the ending to address the concerns addressed at RSN.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur with your edit, but I think we should consider toning down the graphically detailed description of aversive therapy, which is not needed in the lead per the "accessible overview" principle. All of that verbiage is already present in the body of the article, and that's where it belongs.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest creating a new section to address that issue. Incremental change is the only way this will get hashed in a collegial fashion.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Overly graphic description in lead, TMI
Currently, we find this sentence in the lead:


 * 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 by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli," masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure."

I have no quibble about the substance of the comment, but it's too much detail for the lead and it's all repeated elsewhere in the article. Our style guidelines instruct us to "Provide an accessible overview", and that: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It seems to me that putting this material in the lead is intended to shock and disturb the reader in an attempt to sway his/her opinion to a particular point of view.

A more compact and more neutral version might go like this:


 * Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy techniques include aversive treatments and spiritual interventions."

Which covers the main points but leaves the graphic details in the appropriate section. ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 17:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the detail should remain in the lead. This is a very lengthy article, and this detail provides a good summary of the range of damaging, pseudo-scientific techniques used by practitioners of conversion therapy. The notion that the details are graphic are really not important since Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Also, we shouldn't remove detail just to give equal weight to the fringe theory that conversion therapy is actually humane, effective and recognized as valid by the scientific community. - MrX 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that the details are graphic; the problem is that piling on graphic details isn't NPOV, and exceeds the need to provide an accessible overview. Note the addition guidance provided by WP:MOSINTRO: "This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
 * Your fringe argument fails ab initio. Conversion therapy falls well outside of WP:FRINGE.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I think we have different editorial interpretations of MOSINTRO. Consider this: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."


 * I disagree that the details make the article POV. The details take about a half of a paragraph in an article with 78 paragraphs. Pseudo-science and Fringe [theories] are soul mates. If there are sourced viewpoints that pass WP:MEDRS and are notable, then I think they can be represented in the article. However, factual detail that clearly describes some of the techniques used in conversion therapy do deserve top billing. Statements like "Conversion therapy...is a range of pseudo-scientific treatments..." and "American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful", in the lead, require some supporting detail in the lead.


 * That all said, I'm willing to accede to consensus, should one form, to remove this informative detail. - MrX 18:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The operative word in MOSINTRO is "concise". Be that is it may that there are 78 paragraphs in the article, there are only 4 paragraphs in the lead, and it's the lead we are discussing.
 * Looking at it another way, there are 481 words in the lead, and this one sentence is 71 of them - that's 15%. Yet aversive therapy is mentioned in only 4 out of those 78 paragraphs - which is 5%.  This makes a prima facie argument for undue weight in the lead. ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This covers an important aspect that these therapies have been and some still are invasive and violent despite proponents claims to the contrary. Insomesia (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)