![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
It doesn't seem we have made any progress in the last week. I think we need to go through mediation. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 23:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is not NPOV. Here are some problems with the article:
All of these things needed to be added. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindented)I plan to write something under the APA section along the lines of "A 2009 report reaffirmed earlier rulings. They recommended other therapies that do not claim to change sexual orientation, but assists the patient to understand the reasons for wanting to change, and guides them in the formation of a new identity that would be acceptable to them, including the rejection of gay identity." The section is on the guidelines, and the guidelines outlines what is appropriate and what is not. This is the appropriate alternative to conversion therapy, as outlined in the guidelines. To censure this information would be misleading, as it would imply that all efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions were condemned by the mainstream medical association. I would like a discussion of what to add. If you have a problem with my summary, I would like to know what exactly is your problem so that we can come together to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, misleading the reader to think that self-determination is not an issue and there is no acceptable alternative to conversion therapy is not acceptable. If we cannot come to a mutually agreeable solution, I will put up a misleading flag, as I feel that current article is misleading. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Since there has been much discussion here about the need to make edits based upon consensus, it may be helpful to remind ourselves what policy states about how consensus is determined.
WP:CONSENSUS states that, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." So, consensus is not only about counting heads, but also about determining what policy requires. This is important, because some of the arguments being made here do not refer to policy and evade the requirement to justify one's positions with policy. Joshuajohanson's comments above in the Bioenergetics thread are an example of this evasion of the obligation to explain how policy supports one's position.
I explained that the Bioenergetics section depends upon a synthesis of sources and thus violates WP:NOR, but Joshuajohanson's response was simply to say that it was "good content"; he made no attempt to refute my argument that it was synthesis. When I pointed this out to him, his response was to say that there was "no consensus" to remove it. Since determining consensus has to take into account the quality of arguments, and Joshuajohanson's arguments have been of very poor quality, his position that there is no consensus for removal needs to be questioned. I would point out to him that in the end, there is no way that content can be justified without a reason based on policy to keep it here, and that complaining that there is no consensus for removal is of no use if one has a mistaken understanding of how consensus is determined. BG 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Article protection expires in about a day, so I'm going to discuss some changes I want to make.
In addition to removing the Bioenergetics section, these include adding the sections on group therapy and psychoanalysis in my sandbox to Theories and Techniques, tweaking the lead by removing "fantasy modification" from the list of methods (since Haldeman considers fantasy modification to be one specific technique of behavioral methods, and does not discuss it as a separate method), and removing the NARTH quote from the lead, since it is not supported by consensus and no explanation of why it should be considered necessary has been given.
I think some consideration should be given to removing the quotation from the start of the Studies of conversion therapy section. I've challenged the relevance of the new report to the ex-gay section of this article, so by the same logic, it's necessary to challenge its relevance to the studies section too. If it can't be used to source statements about conversion therapy that might look positive, it can't be used to source critical statements either; per NPOV, we can't have any double standards. BG 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson: you request me not to make changes until there is a consensus. I hope this means that you, also, will not make changes until there is a consensus, something that you have done numerous times in the past (one other editor agreeing with you does not a consensus make, especially not where controversial issues are concerned). You write, "The proposed addition of group psychology is unbalanced because it relies on one source that considers it to be conversion therapy and ignores other relevant changes." The first part of that is absurd - obviously group therapy is only relevant to this article to the extent that sources define it as conversion therapy. Haldeman does, so he is the right source. You have provided no argument against my position on this. I can't make any sense of what you mean by saying that the addition "ignores other relevant changes" - what are you talking about? BG 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You also write, "The proposed change brings the focus on how conversion therapy affects the gay population at large, but ignores the right of self-determination of those who it would directly affect." How is that relevant? Again, I can't even make out what you're trying to say; could you explain yourself more carefully, please? If you're trying to argue that all sections of "Theories and techniques" must mention the right to self-determination you keep talking about, I happen to disagree. You write that, "The quote should not be removed because there is no consensus to remove information from the APA." I think the quote should be removed mainly because it isn't necessary. A section on studies of conversion therapy should describe studies of conversion therapy, and nothing more. If the new APA report is deemed relevant to the article at all, then that material might go somewhere else. BG 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Some other points. You say, "Fantasy modifications should also not be removed." Yes it should. I explained my reasons for this. Haldeman does not discuss "fantasy modifications" as a separate method but as one kind of behavioral modification. Could you please respond to the reason I gave, rather than simply disagree with me? You also say, "You rely too heavily on a misinterpreted view of Haldeman's report." No. There's no misinterpretation in anything that I based on Haldeman. If you think there is misinterpretation, it's up to you to show that. BG 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To reply to Joshuajohanson again. You say, "The ex-gay section depends to heavily on one point of view, one that believes it is a type of conversion therapy. The mainstream point of view does not classify it as conversion therapy. The relationships between ex-gay groups and conversion therapy must be presented equally, with the mainstream view given dominance over all other views. Until there is another page available, related therapies should be discussed here, but it should be made clear that they are related therapies." WP:NOR indicates that sources must not be used contrary to their intention, and must be directly related to the subject of an article. If a source does not indicate that ex-gay groups are a form of conversion therapy, then using it to source a description of them as a form of conversion therapy (which is the only respect in which the article is concerned with them) is using it contrary to its intention. Using a source that isn't explicitly about conversion therapy to source claims about conversion therapy probably violates the rule that sources must be directly related to the subject of the article. Furthermore, you are wrong in saying that the "mainstream" point of view does not classify ex-gay groups as conversion therapy. There is no one mainstream point of view on this issue. That being the case, your proposal to give what you consider the "mainstream view" dominance over views would introduce a POV slant into the article. That's unacceptable. BG 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3 is continuing to support the inclusion of a pointless and stupidly-chosen quotation from NARTH's website in the lead, on the basis that it describes what "reparative therapists think they are doing." In fact, the article the quotation comes from does not even mention reparative therapists or reparative therapy, specifically, so the rationale for its inclusion is worthless.
The context of the quotation is this:
"In response to a follow-up question by Dr. Nicolosi about the lack of clarity in APA's statements and positions, Dr. Koocher clearly emphasized that providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions was well within APA's Code of Ethics, and he invited Dr. Nicolosi to submit his recommendations for further clarifications to APA."
So the quotation actually represents Koocher's position, not NARTH's, or those of reparative therapists in general. There's no indication that Koocher is a reparative therapist. The quotation therefore must be removed, since, it an addition to being pointless (since the lead already explains that NARTH advocates "secular forms of conversion therapy", which Hyper3 doesn't seem to realize is the same thing as supporting "psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions"), it distorts and misrepresents its source. BG 22:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To reply to Hyper3's claim that the quotation shouldn't be removed without consensus: you added it without consensus. BG 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3 has made another attempt to wipe criticism of ex-gay treatment from this article, this time using the edit summary, "should not be an attack page (section) constructed by synthesising opposition without proper reference to practitioners." This appears to be a claim that the contents of the section violate WP:SYNTH. They do not. Synthesis is what something is called when it uses a combination of different sources to try to prove something that no one of the sources proves taken by itself. That isn't the case here; everything in that section is sourced to one source (Haldeman), and it represents that source properly and without distortion. I suggest Hyper3 review the policy, rather than continue to make edits that it does not remotely justify. As for the non-representation of practitioners of ex-gay treatment: if they do not regard what they do as conversion therapy, and if they have not published in reliable sources, then it is perfectly appropriate to exclude what they say about themselves from that section. Describing ex-gay practice only from its opponents is the right thing to do if they happen to have produced the only reliable sources, which is probably the case. BG 09:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(Just to clarify - the section does use several sources, but all of the criticism in it is from one source, so that part obviously doesn't involve synthesis.) BG 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The two parts of the article I want to focus on improving at the moment are the lead and the theories and techniques section. The lead needs some fine-tuning. I would suggest, "Conversion therapy has been criticized by many gay and lesbian rights organizations and the medical community, but is supported by some conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and the ex-gay movement" as an alternative to, "Conversion therapy has been criticized by many gay and lesbian rights organizations, and all relevant professional associations. It is mainly supported by conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and by the ex-gay movement." I'm starting to wonder whether this material is necessary for the article in any form, since it seems somewhat repetitive; there's another statement in a later paragraph about criticism of conversion therapy from mainstream organizations, and my view would be that this needs be stated only once. The part about conservative Christians repeats the part about conservative religious organizations; again, I think we need to state that only once.
(The statement in the lead that "The most high-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be conservative religious organizations", does not accurately reflect the source used, Kenji Yoshino's "Covering", which states that, "In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations. These include fundamentalist Christian groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland." Yoshino does not say conservative religious organizations, and he places an emphasis on fundamentalist Christian groups that seems to have been censored out of the lead),
The lead also mentions "fantasy modification" as a form of conversion therapy, though the source used (Haldeman) does not discuss fantasy modification as a separate method but only as one technique of sex therapy. I pointed out that problem before, but got some evasive and unhelpful reactions. I'm simply going to go ahead and change this if there are no relevant objections.
The theories and techniques section needs to have the Bioenergetics removed, since it's synthesis. I think it would be helpful to expand it through my sandbox material here [9]; here again, I proposed this before, but there were no relevant objections. I will be inclined to simply make the addition to the article if there are no relevant objections. BG 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A number of claims in this article are sourced to an unsigned pamphlet for students by "Just the facts coalition." [10] It should go without saying that this is not a reliable scholarly source, yet some fairly sweeping claims are cited to it. Is there any good reason we're using it? 24.22.141.252 ( talk) 05:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Much of the controversy stems trying to include information about efforts to change sexual orientation, which isn't necessarily conversion therapy, such as the ex-gay section, aesthetic realism, and information from the most recent APA report. If this page is meant to exclusively discuss things that have specifically been classified as conversion therapy, then it would make sense to have a more general page which would include all efforts to change sexual orientation. I was thinking about naming the page Sexual orientation change efforts, following the way that the most recent APA report referred to it, but I am open to suggestions. I was thinking it could be the main page for the category Changing Sexuality. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I am skeptical about whether a new article would be a good idea. Sexual orientation change efforts is a term that seems to have been introduced only recently, and we don't know whether it will be widely used in future, or whether it will be only used for one or two reports. If it turns out to be the latter, then creating a new article about it (it's currently a redirect to this article), would probably be a mistake; it may be better to wait to see if it comes into widespread use first. In any case, I wouldn't feel confident in working on such an article until I'm sure how WP:NOR applies here. BG 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You know that it doesn't matter what you or I would call it, but what sources call it. I have reviewed the recent APA 'Therapeutic Responses', specifically pages 21-22, and they do seem to use SOCE to refer back to the earliest attempts, through psychoanalysis, past affirmation and depathologisation, to the present, and they state:
That is defined for the purpose of the report, but it seems to cover everything. If we were to base the article on this alone (as it is defined for that report, not as a general definition beyond the report) then I think we ought to do an RfC to Society, and notify the Sexology/Sexuality project specifically, to get feedback first, so that it doesn't end up referred for deletion for some reason at some later date. But I'm happy to go with this, as long as you reduce the material placed elsewhere and concentrate it in the new article, and provide summaries instead in the other articles, with links to the new article. So, for example, this article would be linked to from within a section SOCE with summary, and have a link back from here under 'see also' - while Ego-dystonic sexual orientation would have a link to the relevant section of SOCE under Professional treatment (which should be separated into affirmative, contemporary SOCE, and sexual-identity change), and a summary of SOCE under a subsection 'SOCE'. Similar for the other articles which are affected. If you do this, I will keep an eye on it to ensure it is NPOV and I will criticise and contribute as and when I am able. Mish ( talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a sand box page to work on Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Dumping Ground. Obviously it is not ready for publication. I'm trying to throw different things in there, and will trim later. Additional input would be appreciated. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
It doesn't seem we have made any progress in the last week. I think we need to go through mediation. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 23:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is not NPOV. Here are some problems with the article:
All of these things needed to be added. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindented)I plan to write something under the APA section along the lines of "A 2009 report reaffirmed earlier rulings. They recommended other therapies that do not claim to change sexual orientation, but assists the patient to understand the reasons for wanting to change, and guides them in the formation of a new identity that would be acceptable to them, including the rejection of gay identity." The section is on the guidelines, and the guidelines outlines what is appropriate and what is not. This is the appropriate alternative to conversion therapy, as outlined in the guidelines. To censure this information would be misleading, as it would imply that all efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions were condemned by the mainstream medical association. I would like a discussion of what to add. If you have a problem with my summary, I would like to know what exactly is your problem so that we can come together to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, misleading the reader to think that self-determination is not an issue and there is no acceptable alternative to conversion therapy is not acceptable. If we cannot come to a mutually agreeable solution, I will put up a misleading flag, as I feel that current article is misleading. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Since there has been much discussion here about the need to make edits based upon consensus, it may be helpful to remind ourselves what policy states about how consensus is determined.
WP:CONSENSUS states that, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." So, consensus is not only about counting heads, but also about determining what policy requires. This is important, because some of the arguments being made here do not refer to policy and evade the requirement to justify one's positions with policy. Joshuajohanson's comments above in the Bioenergetics thread are an example of this evasion of the obligation to explain how policy supports one's position.
I explained that the Bioenergetics section depends upon a synthesis of sources and thus violates WP:NOR, but Joshuajohanson's response was simply to say that it was "good content"; he made no attempt to refute my argument that it was synthesis. When I pointed this out to him, his response was to say that there was "no consensus" to remove it. Since determining consensus has to take into account the quality of arguments, and Joshuajohanson's arguments have been of very poor quality, his position that there is no consensus for removal needs to be questioned. I would point out to him that in the end, there is no way that content can be justified without a reason based on policy to keep it here, and that complaining that there is no consensus for removal is of no use if one has a mistaken understanding of how consensus is determined. BG 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Article protection expires in about a day, so I'm going to discuss some changes I want to make.
In addition to removing the Bioenergetics section, these include adding the sections on group therapy and psychoanalysis in my sandbox to Theories and Techniques, tweaking the lead by removing "fantasy modification" from the list of methods (since Haldeman considers fantasy modification to be one specific technique of behavioral methods, and does not discuss it as a separate method), and removing the NARTH quote from the lead, since it is not supported by consensus and no explanation of why it should be considered necessary has been given.
I think some consideration should be given to removing the quotation from the start of the Studies of conversion therapy section. I've challenged the relevance of the new report to the ex-gay section of this article, so by the same logic, it's necessary to challenge its relevance to the studies section too. If it can't be used to source statements about conversion therapy that might look positive, it can't be used to source critical statements either; per NPOV, we can't have any double standards. BG 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson: you request me not to make changes until there is a consensus. I hope this means that you, also, will not make changes until there is a consensus, something that you have done numerous times in the past (one other editor agreeing with you does not a consensus make, especially not where controversial issues are concerned). You write, "The proposed addition of group psychology is unbalanced because it relies on one source that considers it to be conversion therapy and ignores other relevant changes." The first part of that is absurd - obviously group therapy is only relevant to this article to the extent that sources define it as conversion therapy. Haldeman does, so he is the right source. You have provided no argument against my position on this. I can't make any sense of what you mean by saying that the addition "ignores other relevant changes" - what are you talking about? BG 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You also write, "The proposed change brings the focus on how conversion therapy affects the gay population at large, but ignores the right of self-determination of those who it would directly affect." How is that relevant? Again, I can't even make out what you're trying to say; could you explain yourself more carefully, please? If you're trying to argue that all sections of "Theories and techniques" must mention the right to self-determination you keep talking about, I happen to disagree. You write that, "The quote should not be removed because there is no consensus to remove information from the APA." I think the quote should be removed mainly because it isn't necessary. A section on studies of conversion therapy should describe studies of conversion therapy, and nothing more. If the new APA report is deemed relevant to the article at all, then that material might go somewhere else. BG 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Some other points. You say, "Fantasy modifications should also not be removed." Yes it should. I explained my reasons for this. Haldeman does not discuss "fantasy modifications" as a separate method but as one kind of behavioral modification. Could you please respond to the reason I gave, rather than simply disagree with me? You also say, "You rely too heavily on a misinterpreted view of Haldeman's report." No. There's no misinterpretation in anything that I based on Haldeman. If you think there is misinterpretation, it's up to you to show that. BG 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To reply to Joshuajohanson again. You say, "The ex-gay section depends to heavily on one point of view, one that believes it is a type of conversion therapy. The mainstream point of view does not classify it as conversion therapy. The relationships between ex-gay groups and conversion therapy must be presented equally, with the mainstream view given dominance over all other views. Until there is another page available, related therapies should be discussed here, but it should be made clear that they are related therapies." WP:NOR indicates that sources must not be used contrary to their intention, and must be directly related to the subject of an article. If a source does not indicate that ex-gay groups are a form of conversion therapy, then using it to source a description of them as a form of conversion therapy (which is the only respect in which the article is concerned with them) is using it contrary to its intention. Using a source that isn't explicitly about conversion therapy to source claims about conversion therapy probably violates the rule that sources must be directly related to the subject of the article. Furthermore, you are wrong in saying that the "mainstream" point of view does not classify ex-gay groups as conversion therapy. There is no one mainstream point of view on this issue. That being the case, your proposal to give what you consider the "mainstream view" dominance over views would introduce a POV slant into the article. That's unacceptable. BG 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3 is continuing to support the inclusion of a pointless and stupidly-chosen quotation from NARTH's website in the lead, on the basis that it describes what "reparative therapists think they are doing." In fact, the article the quotation comes from does not even mention reparative therapists or reparative therapy, specifically, so the rationale for its inclusion is worthless.
The context of the quotation is this:
"In response to a follow-up question by Dr. Nicolosi about the lack of clarity in APA's statements and positions, Dr. Koocher clearly emphasized that providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions was well within APA's Code of Ethics, and he invited Dr. Nicolosi to submit his recommendations for further clarifications to APA."
So the quotation actually represents Koocher's position, not NARTH's, or those of reparative therapists in general. There's no indication that Koocher is a reparative therapist. The quotation therefore must be removed, since, it an addition to being pointless (since the lead already explains that NARTH advocates "secular forms of conversion therapy", which Hyper3 doesn't seem to realize is the same thing as supporting "psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions"), it distorts and misrepresents its source. BG 22:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To reply to Hyper3's claim that the quotation shouldn't be removed without consensus: you added it without consensus. BG 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3 has made another attempt to wipe criticism of ex-gay treatment from this article, this time using the edit summary, "should not be an attack page (section) constructed by synthesising opposition without proper reference to practitioners." This appears to be a claim that the contents of the section violate WP:SYNTH. They do not. Synthesis is what something is called when it uses a combination of different sources to try to prove something that no one of the sources proves taken by itself. That isn't the case here; everything in that section is sourced to one source (Haldeman), and it represents that source properly and without distortion. I suggest Hyper3 review the policy, rather than continue to make edits that it does not remotely justify. As for the non-representation of practitioners of ex-gay treatment: if they do not regard what they do as conversion therapy, and if they have not published in reliable sources, then it is perfectly appropriate to exclude what they say about themselves from that section. Describing ex-gay practice only from its opponents is the right thing to do if they happen to have produced the only reliable sources, which is probably the case. BG 09:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(Just to clarify - the section does use several sources, but all of the criticism in it is from one source, so that part obviously doesn't involve synthesis.) BG 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The two parts of the article I want to focus on improving at the moment are the lead and the theories and techniques section. The lead needs some fine-tuning. I would suggest, "Conversion therapy has been criticized by many gay and lesbian rights organizations and the medical community, but is supported by some conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and the ex-gay movement" as an alternative to, "Conversion therapy has been criticized by many gay and lesbian rights organizations, and all relevant professional associations. It is mainly supported by conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and by the ex-gay movement." I'm starting to wonder whether this material is necessary for the article in any form, since it seems somewhat repetitive; there's another statement in a later paragraph about criticism of conversion therapy from mainstream organizations, and my view would be that this needs be stated only once. The part about conservative Christians repeats the part about conservative religious organizations; again, I think we need to state that only once.
(The statement in the lead that "The most high-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be conservative religious organizations", does not accurately reflect the source used, Kenji Yoshino's "Covering", which states that, "In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations. These include fundamentalist Christian groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland." Yoshino does not say conservative religious organizations, and he places an emphasis on fundamentalist Christian groups that seems to have been censored out of the lead),
The lead also mentions "fantasy modification" as a form of conversion therapy, though the source used (Haldeman) does not discuss fantasy modification as a separate method but only as one technique of sex therapy. I pointed out that problem before, but got some evasive and unhelpful reactions. I'm simply going to go ahead and change this if there are no relevant objections.
The theories and techniques section needs to have the Bioenergetics removed, since it's synthesis. I think it would be helpful to expand it through my sandbox material here [9]; here again, I proposed this before, but there were no relevant objections. I will be inclined to simply make the addition to the article if there are no relevant objections. BG 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A number of claims in this article are sourced to an unsigned pamphlet for students by "Just the facts coalition." [10] It should go without saying that this is not a reliable scholarly source, yet some fairly sweeping claims are cited to it. Is there any good reason we're using it? 24.22.141.252 ( talk) 05:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Much of the controversy stems trying to include information about efforts to change sexual orientation, which isn't necessarily conversion therapy, such as the ex-gay section, aesthetic realism, and information from the most recent APA report. If this page is meant to exclusively discuss things that have specifically been classified as conversion therapy, then it would make sense to have a more general page which would include all efforts to change sexual orientation. I was thinking about naming the page Sexual orientation change efforts, following the way that the most recent APA report referred to it, but I am open to suggestions. I was thinking it could be the main page for the category Changing Sexuality. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I am skeptical about whether a new article would be a good idea. Sexual orientation change efforts is a term that seems to have been introduced only recently, and we don't know whether it will be widely used in future, or whether it will be only used for one or two reports. If it turns out to be the latter, then creating a new article about it (it's currently a redirect to this article), would probably be a mistake; it may be better to wait to see if it comes into widespread use first. In any case, I wouldn't feel confident in working on such an article until I'm sure how WP:NOR applies here. BG 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You know that it doesn't matter what you or I would call it, but what sources call it. I have reviewed the recent APA 'Therapeutic Responses', specifically pages 21-22, and they do seem to use SOCE to refer back to the earliest attempts, through psychoanalysis, past affirmation and depathologisation, to the present, and they state:
That is defined for the purpose of the report, but it seems to cover everything. If we were to base the article on this alone (as it is defined for that report, not as a general definition beyond the report) then I think we ought to do an RfC to Society, and notify the Sexology/Sexuality project specifically, to get feedback first, so that it doesn't end up referred for deletion for some reason at some later date. But I'm happy to go with this, as long as you reduce the material placed elsewhere and concentrate it in the new article, and provide summaries instead in the other articles, with links to the new article. So, for example, this article would be linked to from within a section SOCE with summary, and have a link back from here under 'see also' - while Ego-dystonic sexual orientation would have a link to the relevant section of SOCE under Professional treatment (which should be separated into affirmative, contemporary SOCE, and sexual-identity change), and a summary of SOCE under a subsection 'SOCE'. Similar for the other articles which are affected. If you do this, I will keep an eye on it to ensure it is NPOV and I will criticise and contribute as and when I am able. Mish ( talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a sand box page to work on Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Dumping Ground. Obviously it is not ready for publication. I'm trying to throw different things in there, and will trim later. Additional input would be appreciated. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)