![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I reverted a series of major changes by Skoojal ( talk · contribs), who purged the article of "gay" and "lesbian" and replaced with "homosexual" and who has made accusations of NPOVness about at least one other editor objecting to the change. "Homosexual" is becoming recognized as a derogatory term among gays and lesbians. From [1]: "Offensive Terminology to Avoid: Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex." Skoojal claimed that reverting away from "homosexual" was just "political correctness", but this is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:
Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be added to the list of speedy deletion criteria. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
It is therefore clear that WP guidelines indicate that the most appropriate terms to use are "gay" and "lesbian." eaolson ( talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them... The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language agree that "gay" is the preferred term... People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual.
This remains an issue wherein the terminology on articles should only be changed through consensus. It appears that current consensus on wikipedia is not in favor of replacing "gay" and "lesbian" with "homosexual." Consider building consensus prior to making such changes on articles. Kukini háblame aquí 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
eaolson ( talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)As a gay guy, the use of the word homosexual is downright messed up. The word homosexual is now often considered derogatory by gays, partly because the word is used incessantly by the religious right for the express purpose of denigrating gays (the word can sound dirty and clinical).
[outdent]While "homosexual" is a perfectly fine word in the right context, I disagree that the terms "gay" and "lesbian" imply a particularly pro-gay viewpoint. I think you're saying that the use of "gay" or "lesbian" (as opposed to "homosexual") necessarily implies POV in support of gay rights. If that were true, then politicians couldn't say they were opposed to gay marriage; religious leaders couldn't say that lesbians are sinful; psychologists couldn't claim that gays and lesbians are capable of reversing their sexual orientation. "Gay" and "lesbian" are, simply, the human terms for men and woman-- H. s. sapiens males and females--who are endowed with homosexual orientation. The word "homosexual" is not equivalent; it can be used to describe, for instance, the behavior of a Bonobo chimpanzee during a certain time of day. "Homosexual" as an adjective describes a specific behavior; as a noun, it sometimes applies to a particular sociocultural niche. However, when referring to individuals, it is correct to use "gay" and "lesbian." In discussing, say, bull-on-bull mounting behavior, it is just as imprecise to describe the cattle as "gay" as it is to say that, for instance, the people who moved in across the street are "a homosexual couple." Rangergordon ( talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please define "gay lifestyle". I'm gay and I'd like to kow what my lifestyle is. -- Ecelan ( talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please define also "heterosexual lifestyle"; just to make things a bit clearer for the ignorant, like me. Thanks.
An older version of this article wrote that the label reparative originated in 1983, and that it was coined by Elizabeth Moberly. This is quite misleading; the word reparative was used in numerous different contexts before then (eg, in the work of Melanie Klein), so I have changed this part. The entire paragraph of which that sentence was the start was worded misleadingly. It needs further improvement, and so do other parts of the article. Skoojal ( talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just started an article on gender identity disorder in children, which is back in the news following announcements about the DSM-V committee appointments on gender issues. The controversy centers on Kenneth Zucker, who advocates therapy in children to prevent adult gender identity disorder (transsexualism). Some previously-mentioned quotations:
The "prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality" indicates that the literature doesn't make a clear distinction between interventions for altering gender identity and sexual orientation. Zucker wishes to distance his own techniques from reparative therapy because he does not advocate preventing homosexuality, just transsexualism. I feel this should be mentioned here in a section above "New psychoanalytic models and Reparative Therapy." GIDC was formalized as a diagnosis in 1980, though attempts to cure childhood identity disorder predate that diagnosis. The proposed section will be in summary style with a link to the main article GIDC. Wikipedia should include all reliably-sourced uses of the terms "reparative therapy," "conversion therapy," "change therapy," etc. Jokestress ( talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The article reads, 'In 1983 research psychologist Elizabeth Moberly coined the term reparative drive to refer to male homosexuality itself, interpreting men's sexual desires for other men as attempts to compensate for a lacked connection between father and son during childhood.' Now, in his book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Nicolosi says this: 'In the psychoanalytic literature, homosexuality has long been explained as an attempt to "repair" a deficit in masculine identity. This theory is not new; in fact, it has a long tradition within the psychoanalytic literature. While not all homosexuality can be explained simply as reparative drive, for most homosexual men it is a significant motivation. When the homosexual encounters another man who is what he himself would like to be, he is likely to idealize him and romanticize the relationship. Reparative-drive theory began with Sigmund Freud (1914), who linked homosexuality to narcissism: "A man can love himself as he is, he can love himself as he was, he can love someone who was once a part of himself, and he can love what he himself would like to be" (p. 90).' That's from pages 70 and 71, in the section 'Homosexuality as a Reparative Drive.' Now if this is true, then the article's claims perhaps look misleading. Skoojal ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
On page 72 of that book, Nicolosi attributes the reparative drive explanation of homosexuality to Anna Freud, Sandor Rado, and Lionel Ovesey, all of whom wrote well before Elizabeth Moberly. Nicolosi identifies Moberly's contribution as the idea of defensive detachment (p. 19-20), not the reparative explanation of homosexuality. Skoojal ( talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, it seems that the term reparative drive is used to explain homosexuality, not as a term for homosexuality, as the wording of that section implies. Skoojal ( talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This article contains the following quotation from Joseph Nicolosi: 'Each one of us, man and woman alike, is driven by the power of romantic love. These infatuations gain their power from the unconscious drive to become a complete human being. In heterosexuals, it is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-than me. But in homosexuals, it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one’s original gender.' The section of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality that this is taken from is about 'The Limitations of Homosexual Love', and is not primarily about what causes homosexuality. I suggest that this quotation be removed and replaced with something more suitable. The following from page xvi might be better: 'In reality, the homosexual condition is a developmental problem - and one that often results from early problems between father and son. Heterosexual development necessitates the support and cooperation of both parents as the boy disidentifies from mother and identifies with father. Failure in relationship with father may result in failure to internalize male gender-identity. A large proportion of the men seen in psychotherapy for treatment of homosexuality fit this developmental syndrome.' This is much less colorful than the other quotation, and that's part of the reason I'm suggesting it (I have made some related comments on the Joseph Nicolosi talk page, questioning the usefulness and appropriateness of using out of context quotations as a way of explaining someone's theories). Skoojal ( talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently added the words, 'The term reparative therapy is sometimes used loosely as a synonym for conversion therapy in general', to the introduction. So long as this explanation is allowed to remain in the introduction, I no longer think that the statement sourced to Warren Throckmorton needs to be in the article. It might arguably be better placed in the article on Throckmorton. It may seem ironic that I have now removed this myself, having several times re-inserted it, but after some reconsideration I think the sentence I have placed in the introduction is a clearer way of explaining things; hopefully it will also be less contentious. Skoojal ( talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, the following sentence was added to the article: 'In Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders' Media Reference Guide, editors list the term "reparative therapy" under Problematic Terminology, stating: "In reporting, the term "reparative therapy" should be avoided whenever possible (except in quoted material), as it insinuates that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are 'disordered' or 'broken' and need to be 'repaired'."' This statement is wrong. It is perfectly obvious that it is the theories of the reparative therapists that 'insinuate' this, and emphatically not the use of the expression reparative therapy itself, which is the name of a particular kind of therapy. No one is supporting the theories of the reparative therapists simply by using the expression reparative therapy, and it is silly to suggest otherwise. Skoojal ( talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Since many (if not most) psychologists seem to consider CT pseudoscience (scientific claims with no facts/studies to back them up) I added the appropriate tag.
See also - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7445/E287.
Cheers, Conor ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Skoojal, Hi Joshuajohanson,
It's easier to reply to you both in one post - no disrespect meant.
I don't see how pseudoscience is 'dubious and poorly defined' above. I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary, which is generally regarded as a good source for definitions. Here are 2 more concurring definitions from reliable sources: Merriam Webster Free Dictionary
I had written a longer reply based on the article before you made your most recent edits, so I will have to re-read the relevant parts and examine further the sources you reference before re-examining the pseudoscience idea.
As for my change to the lede, I was trying to make things clear, not make it POV or confusing. Your edit has odd syntax - heterosexual as a noun doesn't work in that instance. Surely "identifying" as homosexual isn't POV? If anything it covers LGBT ideas on identity *and* religious/ex-gay/other beliefs about choice... I've clarified the syntax and added the 'identify' bit.
I'm not sure if the edit summery by Skoojal ("undoing edit - this article is already too long and you want to expand it even further? the article needs the reverse of this! see talk") was meant for me... just to clarify, I didn't make the edit you were reverting.
Best, Conor ( talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson,
After reading your newly edited version of the Medical Consensus paragraph, I have to ask you if you actually read any of the sources that you reference? The original summary that you charged was "biased" was actually far more reflective of the sources. The APA statement, for example, is unequivocally against conversion therapy, e.g. their conclusion reads: "Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any 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."
You claimed the paragraph you edited was biased and then went on to remove a paraphrase of the following Am Psych Assoc quotation: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons." This refutes your anti-pseudoscience arguments. Why did you remove this?
The oft-quoted "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.", when actually read in context, does not give psychologists leeway to perform CT.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”
If you look down through the other information about CT in the rest of the world, the consensus is similar to that in the US.
Conor ( talk) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal,
Please give better reasons for reverting my referenced edits other than them being too long. I'm trying to refine syntax and grammar so that the lede is actually coherent. I added the vice-versa bit because conversion therapy is also used in theory for ego-dystonic sexuality disorders, per ICD-10. My additions to the consensus only seem to be causing you trouble because you and one other editor disagree with what the (well-sourced) material wrote - when it was LONGER and used references incorrectly ye didn't seem to have any problems with it.
Please discuss any further problems here; I had the patience to avoid an edit war over the pseudoscience tag, so reciprocity would be appreciated.
Thanks, Conor ( talk) 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just returned from holiday, so please excuse the initial delay in responding. I see that the article is long, and it will take a little time to go through it, look at the reversions in the history and also go through the talkpage. I will hopefully come up with what will, with luck, be a sensible commentary tomorrow. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of the 'cultural references' section, 'Conversion therapy and the ex-gay phenomenon occasionally appear in popular culture, usually in a satirical or skeptical context' has its place in the article, but I think the rest is either trivial or borders on trivia, and could perhaps be removed. Comments? Skoojal ( talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, just a friendly reminder that unilateral decisions are not favoured on wikipedia. You need to give very good reasons for removing verifiable material other than just claiming that the stuff is "unimportant" in your own estimation. Pop culture references are widely accepted as valid sections in wikipedia articles and, as I mentioned, can provide valuable insights into how an issue is perceived by/portrayed to the general public. You have failed to provide a just argument for removing the section and doing so would indeed make me worry about ownership issues. Respectfully, GeneralBelly ( talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, if you read my previous comment, I was COMMENDING you for your edits to the ex-gay section; i.e. I was giving you a compliment. I am still troubled by your edits though: why have you edited the cultural references section without finding consensus? What is the point in having a discussion on a talkpage if you go ahead and do what you want regardless? All of our opinions are equally valid here. You are editing and making reverts unilaterally - that's not good etiquette. Please revert your edit to the cultural references section and continue the discussion here. Thanks, GeneralBelly ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, you have really frayed my wikinerves and have convinced me that you have serious ownership issues with this article. I don't agree with your undue weight argument - it was a short, short, short section that did not change the weighting of the article; in fact, undue weight is only abstractly related to the issue at all. Have you read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles? I am not trying to force my opinions on you or anyone else, but you aren't displaying any desire to reason with me or compromise or even reach consensus. Your reasons for reverting my edits also keep changing (note that you have reverted every single edit I have ever made to this article and have begun edit wars to keep it that way). I'd urge you to re-evaluate your approach to editing this article and allow others to have some wiggleroom. Perhaps I'm naive, but I have never experienced such closed editing of an article. I am taking a wikibreak solely because your stubborn editing is stopping me from contributing to this article. I'm keen to help you pare it down to a more concise version, but you are pushing your own ideas far too strongly. If this gives you some sense of victory, then I hope it's worth it. See you after my wikibreak; hopefully you will be in a more co-operative mood. GeneralBelly ( talk) 02:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The length of this page is annoying but I'm going to archive it in the next couple of days. If anyone else wants to do it before I get a chance, then maybe take a look at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page, in particular Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival. Conor ( talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I comment, I need to make a few points clear.
Having said that, then it appears to me that the points at issue are susceptible to rational analysis.
This is, I think, the best I can do. I claim impartiality - I do not recall ever interacting with the main protagonists here - but not specific expertise. If you do not agree, please remember that I comment only because I was asked to.-- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense to condense the history of CT into a single, concise summary paragraph and move the bulk of the material to a new article that could be referenced beneath the History of CT section? That would open up a lot of space. GeneralBelly ( talk) 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a huge amount of information about ex-gays from the article, on the grounds that the level of detail was irrelevant and gratuitous (telling us how many children someone has is not helpful, and it could be considered intrusive). In any case, this stuff overlapped with biography articles, which is where it really belongs, not here, in an article that's still too long. Skoojal ( talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to move it right away, however, I suggest that the picture of John Paulk would be more appropriate for the article on him. Skoojal ( talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a description of Richard Cohen's therapy: 'He holds male patients in his lap with the patient curled into the fetal position, and also advocates bioenergetic methods involving slamming a pillow with a tennis racket while shouting "Mom! Why did you do this to me?"' I don't think that this is either a fair or a fully accurate description of what Cohen does. It implies that Cohen thinks that each and every patient should always behave in this exact way and say those exact words; I don't think this is true, and I certainly don't think that one video clip from CNN proves that this is the case. The description needs to be changed. Skoojal ( talk) 04:31, 4 August 2008 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I reverted a series of major changes by Skoojal ( talk · contribs), who purged the article of "gay" and "lesbian" and replaced with "homosexual" and who has made accusations of NPOVness about at least one other editor objecting to the change. "Homosexual" is becoming recognized as a derogatory term among gays and lesbians. From [1]: "Offensive Terminology to Avoid: Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex." Skoojal claimed that reverting away from "homosexual" was just "political correctness", but this is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:
Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be added to the list of speedy deletion criteria. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
It is therefore clear that WP guidelines indicate that the most appropriate terms to use are "gay" and "lesbian." eaolson ( talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them... The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language agree that "gay" is the preferred term... People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual.
This remains an issue wherein the terminology on articles should only be changed through consensus. It appears that current consensus on wikipedia is not in favor of replacing "gay" and "lesbian" with "homosexual." Consider building consensus prior to making such changes on articles. Kukini háblame aquí 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
eaolson ( talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)As a gay guy, the use of the word homosexual is downright messed up. The word homosexual is now often considered derogatory by gays, partly because the word is used incessantly by the religious right for the express purpose of denigrating gays (the word can sound dirty and clinical).
[outdent]While "homosexual" is a perfectly fine word in the right context, I disagree that the terms "gay" and "lesbian" imply a particularly pro-gay viewpoint. I think you're saying that the use of "gay" or "lesbian" (as opposed to "homosexual") necessarily implies POV in support of gay rights. If that were true, then politicians couldn't say they were opposed to gay marriage; religious leaders couldn't say that lesbians are sinful; psychologists couldn't claim that gays and lesbians are capable of reversing their sexual orientation. "Gay" and "lesbian" are, simply, the human terms for men and woman-- H. s. sapiens males and females--who are endowed with homosexual orientation. The word "homosexual" is not equivalent; it can be used to describe, for instance, the behavior of a Bonobo chimpanzee during a certain time of day. "Homosexual" as an adjective describes a specific behavior; as a noun, it sometimes applies to a particular sociocultural niche. However, when referring to individuals, it is correct to use "gay" and "lesbian." In discussing, say, bull-on-bull mounting behavior, it is just as imprecise to describe the cattle as "gay" as it is to say that, for instance, the people who moved in across the street are "a homosexual couple." Rangergordon ( talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please define "gay lifestyle". I'm gay and I'd like to kow what my lifestyle is. -- Ecelan ( talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please define also "heterosexual lifestyle"; just to make things a bit clearer for the ignorant, like me. Thanks.
An older version of this article wrote that the label reparative originated in 1983, and that it was coined by Elizabeth Moberly. This is quite misleading; the word reparative was used in numerous different contexts before then (eg, in the work of Melanie Klein), so I have changed this part. The entire paragraph of which that sentence was the start was worded misleadingly. It needs further improvement, and so do other parts of the article. Skoojal ( talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just started an article on gender identity disorder in children, which is back in the news following announcements about the DSM-V committee appointments on gender issues. The controversy centers on Kenneth Zucker, who advocates therapy in children to prevent adult gender identity disorder (transsexualism). Some previously-mentioned quotations:
The "prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality" indicates that the literature doesn't make a clear distinction between interventions for altering gender identity and sexual orientation. Zucker wishes to distance his own techniques from reparative therapy because he does not advocate preventing homosexuality, just transsexualism. I feel this should be mentioned here in a section above "New psychoanalytic models and Reparative Therapy." GIDC was formalized as a diagnosis in 1980, though attempts to cure childhood identity disorder predate that diagnosis. The proposed section will be in summary style with a link to the main article GIDC. Wikipedia should include all reliably-sourced uses of the terms "reparative therapy," "conversion therapy," "change therapy," etc. Jokestress ( talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The article reads, 'In 1983 research psychologist Elizabeth Moberly coined the term reparative drive to refer to male homosexuality itself, interpreting men's sexual desires for other men as attempts to compensate for a lacked connection between father and son during childhood.' Now, in his book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Nicolosi says this: 'In the psychoanalytic literature, homosexuality has long been explained as an attempt to "repair" a deficit in masculine identity. This theory is not new; in fact, it has a long tradition within the psychoanalytic literature. While not all homosexuality can be explained simply as reparative drive, for most homosexual men it is a significant motivation. When the homosexual encounters another man who is what he himself would like to be, he is likely to idealize him and romanticize the relationship. Reparative-drive theory began with Sigmund Freud (1914), who linked homosexuality to narcissism: "A man can love himself as he is, he can love himself as he was, he can love someone who was once a part of himself, and he can love what he himself would like to be" (p. 90).' That's from pages 70 and 71, in the section 'Homosexuality as a Reparative Drive.' Now if this is true, then the article's claims perhaps look misleading. Skoojal ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
On page 72 of that book, Nicolosi attributes the reparative drive explanation of homosexuality to Anna Freud, Sandor Rado, and Lionel Ovesey, all of whom wrote well before Elizabeth Moberly. Nicolosi identifies Moberly's contribution as the idea of defensive detachment (p. 19-20), not the reparative explanation of homosexuality. Skoojal ( talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, it seems that the term reparative drive is used to explain homosexuality, not as a term for homosexuality, as the wording of that section implies. Skoojal ( talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This article contains the following quotation from Joseph Nicolosi: 'Each one of us, man and woman alike, is driven by the power of romantic love. These infatuations gain their power from the unconscious drive to become a complete human being. In heterosexuals, it is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-than me. But in homosexuals, it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one’s original gender.' The section of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality that this is taken from is about 'The Limitations of Homosexual Love', and is not primarily about what causes homosexuality. I suggest that this quotation be removed and replaced with something more suitable. The following from page xvi might be better: 'In reality, the homosexual condition is a developmental problem - and one that often results from early problems between father and son. Heterosexual development necessitates the support and cooperation of both parents as the boy disidentifies from mother and identifies with father. Failure in relationship with father may result in failure to internalize male gender-identity. A large proportion of the men seen in psychotherapy for treatment of homosexuality fit this developmental syndrome.' This is much less colorful than the other quotation, and that's part of the reason I'm suggesting it (I have made some related comments on the Joseph Nicolosi talk page, questioning the usefulness and appropriateness of using out of context quotations as a way of explaining someone's theories). Skoojal ( talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently added the words, 'The term reparative therapy is sometimes used loosely as a synonym for conversion therapy in general', to the introduction. So long as this explanation is allowed to remain in the introduction, I no longer think that the statement sourced to Warren Throckmorton needs to be in the article. It might arguably be better placed in the article on Throckmorton. It may seem ironic that I have now removed this myself, having several times re-inserted it, but after some reconsideration I think the sentence I have placed in the introduction is a clearer way of explaining things; hopefully it will also be less contentious. Skoojal ( talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, the following sentence was added to the article: 'In Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders' Media Reference Guide, editors list the term "reparative therapy" under Problematic Terminology, stating: "In reporting, the term "reparative therapy" should be avoided whenever possible (except in quoted material), as it insinuates that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are 'disordered' or 'broken' and need to be 'repaired'."' This statement is wrong. It is perfectly obvious that it is the theories of the reparative therapists that 'insinuate' this, and emphatically not the use of the expression reparative therapy itself, which is the name of a particular kind of therapy. No one is supporting the theories of the reparative therapists simply by using the expression reparative therapy, and it is silly to suggest otherwise. Skoojal ( talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Since many (if not most) psychologists seem to consider CT pseudoscience (scientific claims with no facts/studies to back them up) I added the appropriate tag.
See also - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7445/E287.
Cheers, Conor ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Skoojal, Hi Joshuajohanson,
It's easier to reply to you both in one post - no disrespect meant.
I don't see how pseudoscience is 'dubious and poorly defined' above. I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary, which is generally regarded as a good source for definitions. Here are 2 more concurring definitions from reliable sources: Merriam Webster Free Dictionary
I had written a longer reply based on the article before you made your most recent edits, so I will have to re-read the relevant parts and examine further the sources you reference before re-examining the pseudoscience idea.
As for my change to the lede, I was trying to make things clear, not make it POV or confusing. Your edit has odd syntax - heterosexual as a noun doesn't work in that instance. Surely "identifying" as homosexual isn't POV? If anything it covers LGBT ideas on identity *and* religious/ex-gay/other beliefs about choice... I've clarified the syntax and added the 'identify' bit.
I'm not sure if the edit summery by Skoojal ("undoing edit - this article is already too long and you want to expand it even further? the article needs the reverse of this! see talk") was meant for me... just to clarify, I didn't make the edit you were reverting.
Best, Conor ( talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson,
After reading your newly edited version of the Medical Consensus paragraph, I have to ask you if you actually read any of the sources that you reference? The original summary that you charged was "biased" was actually far more reflective of the sources. The APA statement, for example, is unequivocally against conversion therapy, e.g. their conclusion reads: "Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any 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."
You claimed the paragraph you edited was biased and then went on to remove a paraphrase of the following Am Psych Assoc quotation: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons." This refutes your anti-pseudoscience arguments. Why did you remove this?
The oft-quoted "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.", when actually read in context, does not give psychologists leeway to perform CT.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”
If you look down through the other information about CT in the rest of the world, the consensus is similar to that in the US.
Conor ( talk) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal,
Please give better reasons for reverting my referenced edits other than them being too long. I'm trying to refine syntax and grammar so that the lede is actually coherent. I added the vice-versa bit because conversion therapy is also used in theory for ego-dystonic sexuality disorders, per ICD-10. My additions to the consensus only seem to be causing you trouble because you and one other editor disagree with what the (well-sourced) material wrote - when it was LONGER and used references incorrectly ye didn't seem to have any problems with it.
Please discuss any further problems here; I had the patience to avoid an edit war over the pseudoscience tag, so reciprocity would be appreciated.
Thanks, Conor ( talk) 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just returned from holiday, so please excuse the initial delay in responding. I see that the article is long, and it will take a little time to go through it, look at the reversions in the history and also go through the talkpage. I will hopefully come up with what will, with luck, be a sensible commentary tomorrow. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of the 'cultural references' section, 'Conversion therapy and the ex-gay phenomenon occasionally appear in popular culture, usually in a satirical or skeptical context' has its place in the article, but I think the rest is either trivial or borders on trivia, and could perhaps be removed. Comments? Skoojal ( talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, just a friendly reminder that unilateral decisions are not favoured on wikipedia. You need to give very good reasons for removing verifiable material other than just claiming that the stuff is "unimportant" in your own estimation. Pop culture references are widely accepted as valid sections in wikipedia articles and, as I mentioned, can provide valuable insights into how an issue is perceived by/portrayed to the general public. You have failed to provide a just argument for removing the section and doing so would indeed make me worry about ownership issues. Respectfully, GeneralBelly ( talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, if you read my previous comment, I was COMMENDING you for your edits to the ex-gay section; i.e. I was giving you a compliment. I am still troubled by your edits though: why have you edited the cultural references section without finding consensus? What is the point in having a discussion on a talkpage if you go ahead and do what you want regardless? All of our opinions are equally valid here. You are editing and making reverts unilaterally - that's not good etiquette. Please revert your edit to the cultural references section and continue the discussion here. Thanks, GeneralBelly ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, you have really frayed my wikinerves and have convinced me that you have serious ownership issues with this article. I don't agree with your undue weight argument - it was a short, short, short section that did not change the weighting of the article; in fact, undue weight is only abstractly related to the issue at all. Have you read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles? I am not trying to force my opinions on you or anyone else, but you aren't displaying any desire to reason with me or compromise or even reach consensus. Your reasons for reverting my edits also keep changing (note that you have reverted every single edit I have ever made to this article and have begun edit wars to keep it that way). I'd urge you to re-evaluate your approach to editing this article and allow others to have some wiggleroom. Perhaps I'm naive, but I have never experienced such closed editing of an article. I am taking a wikibreak solely because your stubborn editing is stopping me from contributing to this article. I'm keen to help you pare it down to a more concise version, but you are pushing your own ideas far too strongly. If this gives you some sense of victory, then I hope it's worth it. See you after my wikibreak; hopefully you will be in a more co-operative mood. GeneralBelly ( talk) 02:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The length of this page is annoying but I'm going to archive it in the next couple of days. If anyone else wants to do it before I get a chance, then maybe take a look at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page, in particular Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival. Conor ( talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I comment, I need to make a few points clear.
Having said that, then it appears to me that the points at issue are susceptible to rational analysis.
This is, I think, the best I can do. I claim impartiality - I do not recall ever interacting with the main protagonists here - but not specific expertise. If you do not agree, please remember that I comment only because I was asked to.-- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense to condense the history of CT into a single, concise summary paragraph and move the bulk of the material to a new article that could be referenced beneath the History of CT section? That would open up a lot of space. GeneralBelly ( talk) 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a huge amount of information about ex-gays from the article, on the grounds that the level of detail was irrelevant and gratuitous (telling us how many children someone has is not helpful, and it could be considered intrusive). In any case, this stuff overlapped with biography articles, which is where it really belongs, not here, in an article that's still too long. Skoojal ( talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to move it right away, however, I suggest that the picture of John Paulk would be more appropriate for the article on him. Skoojal ( talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a description of Richard Cohen's therapy: 'He holds male patients in his lap with the patient curled into the fetal position, and also advocates bioenergetic methods involving slamming a pillow with a tennis racket while shouting "Mom! Why did you do this to me?"' I don't think that this is either a fair or a fully accurate description of what Cohen does. It implies that Cohen thinks that each and every patient should always behave in this exact way and say those exact words; I don't think this is true, and I certainly don't think that one video clip from CNN proves that this is the case. The description needs to be changed. Skoojal ( talk) 04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)