![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
derided by critics as "pray the gay away" seems awfully POV. And this phrase has also, i believe, been reported in mainstream media. Or do all who employ the phrase become critics and are assumed to be deriding? Insomesia ( talk)
As far as sourcing, I looked at sourcing it when I added it, and found tons of sources using the phrase, but most were recent news reports and not about conversion therapy in general. Since I didn't find strong sources, I didn't add any yet. Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There's been a lot of edit warring over the lead. I'ld like to remind everyone what WP:LEAD says: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lead should be a summary of what's in the article. If you want to add something, add it to the body of the article. Make sure that the lead summarizes the whole article, according to weight, and avoid WP:UNDUE. FurrySings ( talk) 03:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
NARTH says that it repudiates aversive techniques and that it stresses therapeutic efforts toward changing "unwanted homosexual attractions" while respecting the rights of clients to self-determination. [1] [2]
- ^ NARTH Statement on Sexual Orientation Change
- ^ Hamilton, Julie. "NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH". National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Retrieved December 29, 2012.
let's discuss. Happy new years to all btw from us east coasters.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be in all of our best interests to have an admin impose a 1RR on this article? We've all been using the "undo" button fairly liberally, and a 1RR would force us to talk things out in the future. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 05:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Chiropractic falls under pseudo science, no? I think CT is less prevalent.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
06:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The definition at the Arb case is "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." From a review of the article and talk page I see a subject that is both described as having a scientific basis and which has "little or no following in the scientific community", I do not see the "often being..." clause as limiting. And as near as I can tell the article uses the term pseudoscience in the lede. As to the claim that it's "based in psychotherapy", the article defends any association of the two with a single non-neutral and apparently non-notable source, and note studies which appear to argue against efficacy from the 1950s. The argument for such a linkage is weak, and independently illogical (To make an analogy, astrology may be "based on astronomy", but that doesn't make it science.) These pseudoscience articles are inherently drama-magnets, that this is a political football is not something I'd argue, but in my view, that strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for any otherwise warranted editing restrictions. While I have not edited this article at any time, I'm still not convinced that I'd be seen as uninvolved enough to act as an admin on this question, and there are tons of other admins, so I'll leave my opinion and move along. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that, sadly, it's only a psuedoscience topic when we're talking about sexuality conversion therapy. When it comes to gender conversion therapy, there's sadly a noticeable support for it in the psych community, including one of the people cited in this article as being critical of Spitzer, is a strong proponent of conversion therapy for transgender children, who was among one of several people the NGLTF criticised for being given positions influence in the DSM-V taskforce for sexual and gender identity disorders:
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is questioning the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) recent appointments of Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D., to chair the Committee on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), and Ray Blanchard, Ph.D., to serve as a committee member. These appointments are raising great concerns within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Zucker has built his reputation on the position that children can be directed away from nonconforming gender expression via therapy, while Blanchard has a long list of articles pathologizing commonplace expressions of sexuality and gender.
— National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, May 28, 2008
In actual fact, would it be within the remit of the article to mention gender conversion therapy? It does happen, and there is sizeable controversy that some professionals (especially at CAMH, funny that...) are advocating that and not just sexuality conversion therapy. Sceptre ( talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone posted at WT:MED asking for another set of eyes here. Due to the ongoing edit warring and this being pseudoscience this topic falls under discretionary sanctions. Please obtain consensus using a RfC before changing the issue in question further. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see why we are using a blogs interpretation of the retraction of the study. Actually I fail to see why this blog is in the article at all. Besides the obvious fact is is not a RS, its author is not an an academic. Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the primary source of the retraction and it's wording, which is "retraction"?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Academics are often quite petty, childish and overly sensitive. But we never get that here, right? <g>
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) I have indeed heard people say "slain" but that oblique comment of yours clarifies things not a whit. Killer Chihuahua 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as an academic, I think the word "renounced" is an accurate and entirely reasonable term to use to describe Spitzer's statement. However, as a Wikipedian, it seems to me that this debate might be ended by avoiding either term in favour of Spitzer's own words. How about...
Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 11:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
All broken citations:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help))I fixed:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
P.D.: Install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to spot these errors very quickly. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm two sentences into this article and I already see significant problems. For something to be called "pseudo-scientific" it has to have pretensions to a scientific basis in the first place, something like, say, phrenology. Yet here we have something that at the begining of the article is nicknamed "pray the gay away," linked to fundamentalist Christianity, and thus, it would seem to me, is based on faith rather than on pseudo-science. Of course, when I look down the page I see early examples of "conversion therapy" which seem to have little or nothing to do with religion so the whole thing seems rather a mess. Badmintonhist ( talk) 01:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a copy of Dianetics which claims it can be used to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, if they choose too. 24.94.251.19 ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently there exist summer camps in South Africa that parents there can send their children to to be "converted" from gay to straight. [1] I can't find a place to put it in the article, but it should be in somewhere.-- Auric talk 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Request for Comment here is simple: Should the term "Pray the gay away" be listed as an alternate name for this therapy in the article - and if so, should it be boldfaced in the first sentence? The term is used a lot, arguably more than the official conversion therapy name, but other editors have objected to it for being slangy and pejorative. Ego White Tray ( talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
When I visited this article, the hatnote was still there but there's no explanation of the term in the article. I agree with previous commentators that while we're not a dictionary, it's inherently confusing to redirect a non obvious term to an article, and then provide no explanation of the relevance of the article you've redirected the reader to. And I don't think the term is quite obvious enough that it requires no explaination. Although it's been a while, I see no evidence to consensus above has changed. In other words, while I don't necessarily disagree with this editor [10] that there's no reason to mention Christian fundamentalists two times in the LEDE, i do think the removal of the term was wrong and have therefore reintroduced it [11]. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the lead paragraph is mostly a series of quotes from the American Psychiatric Association. I don't think that reads well. WP:LONGQUOTE says "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." According to MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph of the lead should define the topic and establish the context. I think that the lead paragraph should be rewritten to define the topic and establish the context, and that the quotes should be paraphrased and the quotes themselves hidden in the citations in the '|quote=' field. FurrySings ( talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The American Psychiatric Association has condemned "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[7] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[7]
The American Psychiatric Association has condemned and called unethical psychiatric treatment based on "the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder" or that the patient should change sexual orientation.[7][8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation.[7]
I would like to ask MrX what, precisely, he sees as being the significance of Isidor Sadger and Felix Boehm? How exactly do you think information about these obscure figures will be of benefit to readers trying to understand conversion therapy? Despite the summary you used, I don't believe that either of them is in any way a "notable" figure for this field. Most literature on conversion therapy doesn't even mention them, so far as I know. I note that you did not restore the material about J. Vinchon, Sacha Nacht, and Daniel Lagache, which I removed earlier this month - why are Sadger and Boehm more worthy of mention than Vinchon, Nacht, or Lagache? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
California and New Jersey have banned conversion therapy for minors. This does not apply to religious institutions. If I remember correctly, they have been upheld, so far. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it is relevant and important to include legal developments on this issue. I would appreciate that we try to remain neutral in comments in this public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.143 ( talk) 05:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage, as original research:
'Nicolosi's "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" clarifies that Haldeman's interpretation of his work, cited above, is inaccurate; Nicolosi explains that some males are temperamentally more sensitive and esthetically oriented and can never be expected to act in a way that is stereotypically masculine. As Nicolosi says, "A gender-nonconforming boy CAN be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle--and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician--and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are 'who he is,' part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits." Nicolosi adds, "With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood."'
The citation given was page 48 of Nicolosi's book about preventing homosexuality. I happen to have a copy of that book. I have looked up the passage, and it does not support what appeared in the article. The relevant part of Nicolosi's book reads as follows:
'But make no mistake about this: A gender-nonconforming boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle - and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician - and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are "who he is", part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits. With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.'
That passage cannot be used as a criticism of Haldeman. It does not even mention Haldeman, or say anything about Haldeman's interpretation of Nicolosi's work. To use the passage to criticize Haldeman is unacceptable original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
derided by critics as "pray the gay away" seems awfully POV. And this phrase has also, i believe, been reported in mainstream media. Or do all who employ the phrase become critics and are assumed to be deriding? Insomesia ( talk)
As far as sourcing, I looked at sourcing it when I added it, and found tons of sources using the phrase, but most were recent news reports and not about conversion therapy in general. Since I didn't find strong sources, I didn't add any yet. Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There's been a lot of edit warring over the lead. I'ld like to remind everyone what WP:LEAD says: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lead should be a summary of what's in the article. If you want to add something, add it to the body of the article. Make sure that the lead summarizes the whole article, according to weight, and avoid WP:UNDUE. FurrySings ( talk) 03:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
NARTH says that it repudiates aversive techniques and that it stresses therapeutic efforts toward changing "unwanted homosexual attractions" while respecting the rights of clients to self-determination. [1] [2]
- ^ NARTH Statement on Sexual Orientation Change
- ^ Hamilton, Julie. "NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH". National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Retrieved December 29, 2012.
let's discuss. Happy new years to all btw from us east coasters.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be in all of our best interests to have an admin impose a 1RR on this article? We've all been using the "undo" button fairly liberally, and a 1RR would force us to talk things out in the future. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 05:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Chiropractic falls under pseudo science, no? I think CT is less prevalent.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
06:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The definition at the Arb case is "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." From a review of the article and talk page I see a subject that is both described as having a scientific basis and which has "little or no following in the scientific community", I do not see the "often being..." clause as limiting. And as near as I can tell the article uses the term pseudoscience in the lede. As to the claim that it's "based in psychotherapy", the article defends any association of the two with a single non-neutral and apparently non-notable source, and note studies which appear to argue against efficacy from the 1950s. The argument for such a linkage is weak, and independently illogical (To make an analogy, astrology may be "based on astronomy", but that doesn't make it science.) These pseudoscience articles are inherently drama-magnets, that this is a political football is not something I'd argue, but in my view, that strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for any otherwise warranted editing restrictions. While I have not edited this article at any time, I'm still not convinced that I'd be seen as uninvolved enough to act as an admin on this question, and there are tons of other admins, so I'll leave my opinion and move along. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that, sadly, it's only a psuedoscience topic when we're talking about sexuality conversion therapy. When it comes to gender conversion therapy, there's sadly a noticeable support for it in the psych community, including one of the people cited in this article as being critical of Spitzer, is a strong proponent of conversion therapy for transgender children, who was among one of several people the NGLTF criticised for being given positions influence in the DSM-V taskforce for sexual and gender identity disorders:
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is questioning the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) recent appointments of Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D., to chair the Committee on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), and Ray Blanchard, Ph.D., to serve as a committee member. These appointments are raising great concerns within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Zucker has built his reputation on the position that children can be directed away from nonconforming gender expression via therapy, while Blanchard has a long list of articles pathologizing commonplace expressions of sexuality and gender.
— National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, May 28, 2008
In actual fact, would it be within the remit of the article to mention gender conversion therapy? It does happen, and there is sizeable controversy that some professionals (especially at CAMH, funny that...) are advocating that and not just sexuality conversion therapy. Sceptre ( talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone posted at WT:MED asking for another set of eyes here. Due to the ongoing edit warring and this being pseudoscience this topic falls under discretionary sanctions. Please obtain consensus using a RfC before changing the issue in question further. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see why we are using a blogs interpretation of the retraction of the study. Actually I fail to see why this blog is in the article at all. Besides the obvious fact is is not a RS, its author is not an an academic. Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the primary source of the retraction and it's wording, which is "retraction"?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Academics are often quite petty, childish and overly sensitive. But we never get that here, right? <g>
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) I have indeed heard people say "slain" but that oblique comment of yours clarifies things not a whit. Killer Chihuahua 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as an academic, I think the word "renounced" is an accurate and entirely reasonable term to use to describe Spitzer's statement. However, as a Wikipedian, it seems to me that this debate might be ended by avoiding either term in favour of Spitzer's own words. How about...
Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 11:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
All broken citations:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help))I fixed:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
P.D.: Install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to spot these errors very quickly. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm two sentences into this article and I already see significant problems. For something to be called "pseudo-scientific" it has to have pretensions to a scientific basis in the first place, something like, say, phrenology. Yet here we have something that at the begining of the article is nicknamed "pray the gay away," linked to fundamentalist Christianity, and thus, it would seem to me, is based on faith rather than on pseudo-science. Of course, when I look down the page I see early examples of "conversion therapy" which seem to have little or nothing to do with religion so the whole thing seems rather a mess. Badmintonhist ( talk) 01:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a copy of Dianetics which claims it can be used to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, if they choose too. 24.94.251.19 ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently there exist summer camps in South Africa that parents there can send their children to to be "converted" from gay to straight. [1] I can't find a place to put it in the article, but it should be in somewhere.-- Auric talk 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Request for Comment here is simple: Should the term "Pray the gay away" be listed as an alternate name for this therapy in the article - and if so, should it be boldfaced in the first sentence? The term is used a lot, arguably more than the official conversion therapy name, but other editors have objected to it for being slangy and pejorative. Ego White Tray ( talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
When I visited this article, the hatnote was still there but there's no explanation of the term in the article. I agree with previous commentators that while we're not a dictionary, it's inherently confusing to redirect a non obvious term to an article, and then provide no explanation of the relevance of the article you've redirected the reader to. And I don't think the term is quite obvious enough that it requires no explaination. Although it's been a while, I see no evidence to consensus above has changed. In other words, while I don't necessarily disagree with this editor [10] that there's no reason to mention Christian fundamentalists two times in the LEDE, i do think the removal of the term was wrong and have therefore reintroduced it [11]. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the lead paragraph is mostly a series of quotes from the American Psychiatric Association. I don't think that reads well. WP:LONGQUOTE says "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." According to MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph of the lead should define the topic and establish the context. I think that the lead paragraph should be rewritten to define the topic and establish the context, and that the quotes should be paraphrased and the quotes themselves hidden in the citations in the '|quote=' field. FurrySings ( talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The American Psychiatric Association has condemned "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[7] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[7]
The American Psychiatric Association has condemned and called unethical psychiatric treatment based on "the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder" or that the patient should change sexual orientation.[7][8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation.[7]
I would like to ask MrX what, precisely, he sees as being the significance of Isidor Sadger and Felix Boehm? How exactly do you think information about these obscure figures will be of benefit to readers trying to understand conversion therapy? Despite the summary you used, I don't believe that either of them is in any way a "notable" figure for this field. Most literature on conversion therapy doesn't even mention them, so far as I know. I note that you did not restore the material about J. Vinchon, Sacha Nacht, and Daniel Lagache, which I removed earlier this month - why are Sadger and Boehm more worthy of mention than Vinchon, Nacht, or Lagache? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
California and New Jersey have banned conversion therapy for minors. This does not apply to religious institutions. If I remember correctly, they have been upheld, so far. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it is relevant and important to include legal developments on this issue. I would appreciate that we try to remain neutral in comments in this public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.143 ( talk) 05:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage, as original research:
'Nicolosi's "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" clarifies that Haldeman's interpretation of his work, cited above, is inaccurate; Nicolosi explains that some males are temperamentally more sensitive and esthetically oriented and can never be expected to act in a way that is stereotypically masculine. As Nicolosi says, "A gender-nonconforming boy CAN be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle--and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician--and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are 'who he is,' part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits." Nicolosi adds, "With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood."'
The citation given was page 48 of Nicolosi's book about preventing homosexuality. I happen to have a copy of that book. I have looked up the passage, and it does not support what appeared in the article. The relevant part of Nicolosi's book reads as follows:
'But make no mistake about this: A gender-nonconforming boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle - and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician - and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are "who he is", part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits. With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.'
That passage cannot be used as a criticism of Haldeman. It does not even mention Haldeman, or say anything about Haldeman's interpretation of Nicolosi's work. To use the passage to criticize Haldeman is unacceptable original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)