Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Re: Change to section on homosexuality

If I may chime in to perhaps add something useful to what I think may be the cause of the disagreements. Having read the large history of this subject on Wikipedia and having been a student of Aesthetic Realism in the late seventies, early eighties, I'm familiar with the subject matter. For the record, I consider Eli Siegel to be an important 20th century scholar whose contribution to the world's knowledge has still not been fully recognized as it should be. What his students have done, especially after his death is another matter. The subject that has been mentioned before, and one which is in the national spotlight is the matter of Conversion Therapy for homosexual men and women. New Jersey just made it Illegal, two months after Exodus international, the largest group devoted to the conversion of homosexuals, closed its doors and formally apologized for their history. It seems what the Aesthetic Realism foundation did clearly do, evident in the transcript of the man who publicly claimed the change from homosexuality but privately was still gay, is practice a form of, at times, virulent form of conversion therapy. I do recall that this same man later committed suicide. Whoever did change and is happy with that change should be counted as a valid opinion if they publicly said so. It's not useful to mince words. But the matter of conversion therapy and its place in the history of Aesthetic Realism is I think, the point underlying these immense back and forths. To their credit, the Aesthetic Realism foundation discontinued presenting on this subject, but it does not mean that it is erased from their philosophy and their outlook on the world. I propose a small addition to the article that states that the foundation did practice conversion therapy but later saw that it was cruel and stopped. Degas525 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the person mentioned above did not commit suicide. User:Degas525 was asked to remove it but has not responded. LoreMariano (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy to be confused. It was Eli Siegel who "changed from breathing" through the study of Aesthetic Realism. - Outerlimits (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You deny that it's true? I'm not making a cause and effect relationship here, but I know for a fact that this man, whose brother still studies Aesthetic realism, did commit suicide. Degas525 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge, what might seem a minor change to you might not seem minor to other editors in this very sensitive section. For example, the parenthetical passage you have removed("he was no longer impelled towards men") might seem redundant, but emphasizes the fact that the change being described was not simply a change in behavior but a change in physical response. This is the most contentious aspect of the article, and it concerns living persons. I'm not going to revert but will wait for other editors to weigh in, and unlike my change regarding eugenics above (which nobody seems to care about), I think there will be comments on this change. For myself, although I am not one of those personally involved, I think the deleted parenthetical passage clarifies the nature of the change and therefore should be reverted. Trouver (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason the inclusion of the phrase "he was no longer impelled toward men" is needed here is because it describes the nature of the change Kranz and other men are saying happened to them which goes beyond simply a repressing of sexual attraction toward men (which has in some other instances been described as change). I would disagree that the phrase is redundant. In any event this is very far from an insignificant edit to the article. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to inform me that my change was not minor. I did not mark it as minor, or consider it that way. The "sensitive" section on homosexuality is poorly written and tendentious, and clearly needs major changes. To explain that Sheldon Kranz "was no longer impelled towards men" when he allegedly changed his sexual orientation is an insult to the intelligence of every reader of this article. For a man, a homosexual orientation is by definition sexual attraction toward men, and a heterosexual orientation is by definition sexual attraction toward women. Therefore, when Kranz supposedly changed his sexual orientation, the alleged change consisted of his ceasing to be attracted toward men and becoming attracted to women instead. Whether the change actually occurred or not, understanding what it is supposed to mean is perfectly simple, and doesn't require the "explanation" I removed. There is no need to note that the change was not simply one of behavior, because sexual orientation (as educated people know) is not the same thing as sexual behavior. If some readers (children, perhaps) are unaware of what "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality" mean, then we can link to the appropriate articles. You raise the red flag of BLP, which is in fact irrelevant, since Sheldon Kranz is long dead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this section went through a great deal of back and forth between editors, which resulted in some redundancy. How about if the sentence is changed to: "Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: he was no longer impelled toward men, but experienced love for a woman for the first time in his life. Kranz was married for 25 years (until his death) to Obie award-winning actress Anne Fielding." Comments? Trouver (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is not wording that I myself would have used, but I think it is preferable to what is in the article now. You may as well make the change. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a whole lot wrong with the suggested wording, the most compelling of which is that it's not based on any cited reliable source. I would like to check the sources for the claims made, so we'll need as many citations as are needed to support them. It's also needlessly detailed. And there's absolutely no reason to include such peacock preening trivia as "Obie award-winning", nor does his wife's name seem material in any way. I'm not sure why anyone thought it relevant that Kranz was a World War II veteran, either. I believe that what was actually published in the "H Persuasion" was more or less that Kranz claimed that he was initially exclusively homosexual, yet after his first Aesthetic Realism lesson he never had sex with a man again, and began to desire women. That's a much clearer way of stating it, and attributes the claim to Kranz. I suppose we'll have to dig the book out of storage. And of course, the real problem with the section on Aesthetic Realism's ex-gay efforts is that nowhere is their claim counterbalanced by the well-established mainstream consensus that such change is not possible, and such efforts are harmful. This is required by WP:FRINGE. Instead the current article seeks to attribute this mainstream view to a small coterie of gay therapists, gay advocacy groups and gay activists, who are further characterized as "hostile to Aesthetic Realism" instead of "dismissive of Aesthetic Realism's claims". We are told that it is these groups, rather than, say national press such as David Susskind and The New York Times who characterized what AR was offering as a gay cure, which of course is not true. We should also probably place AR's idea...that male homosexuality arises as a result of distaste or hatred for women... historically, as a theory popular in the psychoanalytic era, but discarded in modern thought. One is also left with the idea that AR has repudiated these views rather than merely stopped discussing them, which is of course not the case. There are also other issues: "In keeping with its general approach," is unneeded special pleading, for example, and the heading "Victim of the Press" should be removed, as the "Victim of the Press" campaign is not the main topic of the paragraph that follows, which is actually still about AR's doctrine on homosexuality. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Trouver's suggested change because it weakens the sentence. It is much clearer to say that Sheldon Kranz changed from homosexuality than to say his sexual preference changed, which is admittedly the same thing but expressed in a less straight-forward fashion. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The expression "changed from homosexuality" is Aesthetic Realist jargon that doesn't belong in the article except in direct quotations. Few, if any, people who aren't supportive of or associated with Aesthetic Realism would consider it appropriate language. And to Outerlimits above, let me repeat that Trouver's proposed wording is not something I would have come up with myself. It's better than what's in the article now only in that it avoids the redundancy I pointed out. If material in the homosexuality section isn't sourced properly, then of course it needs to be removed (some of the refs simply give something kind "the David Susskind show" as a source, which I doubt is acceptable. Instead, we would need other sources that covered events). I also agree that the fact that Anne Fielding won an award for her acting isn't relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As a man who changed from homosexuality through my study of Aesthetic Realism and someone new to this talk page, I am perplexed by the objection to the phrase, "changed from homosexuality." To quote one source, Websters Dictionary <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change>, the first definition of the intransitive verb "change" is "to become different." This describes precisely what occurred in my life. I was homosexual; I became heterosexual. If this isn't appropriate language and readily understandable to the vast majority of English speaking people over the age of (conservatively) 12, I don't know what is.Sydney Bufford (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether you have changed your sexual orientation or not has no relevance to this discussion. You may happen to think that "changed from homosexuality" is appropriate language, but to me (and I think to the overwhelming majority of people) it's simply a peculiar, confusing piece of jargon. Were it really an appropriate expression, then it might be widely used, but in fact no article on Wikipedia that deals with attempts to change sexual orientation uses the expression except this one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that "change" means "become different" doesn't mean that "Kranz changed from homosexuality" is idiomatic; quite the opposite. If you apply your definition, "Kranz changed from homosexuality" would mean "Kranz became different from homosexuality" which is fairly nonsensical. Kranz and homosexuality were different things at all times. FreeKnowledgeCreator, I didn't and don't mean to discourage you from making any incremental changes that you feel improve the article, but did want to make sure that uncited assertions didn't get introduced (such as putting AR's assertion that Kranz's sexual orientation changed as "his way of seeing the world changed" into Kranz's mouth, for example, as we have no source quoting Kranz on this point.) - Outerlimits (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite right. If a man broke his leg, and the leg were then healed by some method, we wouldn't say that he "changed from having a broken leg." There's no reason to use similar kinds of weird language to describe alleged changes in sexual orientation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already read more on this topic than I ever would, but I just have to say that "he was no longer impelled towards men" is the most awkward way of saying, "he no longer had sexual desire for men" or "he was no longer gay" that I've ever seen. "Impelled"? Who uses this term regarding sexual orientation? It is archaic. I'm not romantically impelled to other people, I desire them, fall in love/lust, have a crush, etc.

This seems like some buzz-word that is being used to be consistent to some ideological principle but just because founders of this movement used certain terms or phrases doesn't mean that the writing of the article has to be awkwardly written, too.

Our understanding of sexual orientation has evolved over the past century and I don't think anyone, straight, gay, bi or queer, thinks of sexual attraction being a matter of being "impelled" towards another person. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "no longer impelled towards men" is an example of the kind of language that needs to be removed from that section. By all means remove it, or do whatever else you can to improve the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)|

This controversy is not about anyone's preferred phraseology, but rather reporting in a straightforward fashion how Kranz himself described what occurred with him, and since his statements are published (and I find it understandable English in spite of the effort to characterize it as "peculiar") I think this should reflect how Kranz expressed himself. He said he "changed from homosexuality." It is also clear that Kranz felt homosexuality as an impulsion of a kind he didn't like rather than as an "attraction" or "desire." Throughout The H Persuasion we have various statements he made about his sexual attraction to men and how he felt about it such as "My feeling was that I never felt good before, during and after, though I was propelled and compelled as much as anyone." Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-910492-14-X.. Kranz was an editor with Random House and rather accomplished with the English language. He wrote short stories and taught English literature as he himself says in the transcript of the David Susskind Show. My point here is that while others might express themselves differently these sentences are about Kranz and his change and should reflect how he himself described it. Living persons are still involved. Although Sheldon Kranz died years ago, his wife, Anne Fielding, is still living, teaching and performing as an actress today.

And by the way, regardless of a comment above, we do have a source for Kranz saying that as his way of seeing the world changed his sexual orientation changed. "Aesthetic Realism is the first body of knowledge which presents a way of seeing the world that incidentally affects one in terms of the way one sees women." Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-910492-14-X. "The way you see the world is inaccurate. As that changes, the H situation will change." (Kranz quoting what Eli Siegel said to him in an Aesthetic Realism lesson.) Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 26. ISBN 0-910492-14-X.. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the name of Kranz's surviving spouse should be removed, and immediately if you feel that mention of her marriage is potentially embarrassing. The name is trivia, rather than something which actually illuminates the subject of Aesthetic Realism. And as I think we've established, we're not obliged to use Kranz's words when what he said can be stated in plain, idiomatic English, in a way that is clearer and more accessible to our readers. The subject of the section is AR's claims about homosexuality, not the language in which they were couched. Insofar as Kranz's statement are material, they can be summarized rather than quoted when that makes the article more lucid and concise.- Outerlimits (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not suggesting deletion of Anne Fielding-Kranz' name since the fact that a man who said he changed from homosexuality was happily married for decades is hardly trivial. And the word changes proposed, as I outlined in detail above, do not express what Sheldon Kranz said in "plain, idiomatic English" but clearly change its meaning. Kranz' words are in themselves plain and idiomatic English and don't need to be rewritten. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you are attempting to argue that this article should be written in Aesthetic Realist jargon. "Changed from homosexuality" is not correct English, does not make sense, and is not language that a properly written, neutral encyclopedia would use, unless quoting someone directly. Wikipedia is under no obligation to use whatever weird expression someone chose to employ in describing an alleged change in his sexual orientation. Instead, it should use neutral, scientifically accurate language. This is not "rewriting" Kranz, or changing his meaning, as you incorrectly imply. It is simply brining this article up to Wikipedia's standards. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that people should be accurately quoted and not have their words rewritten to convey a meaning they did not intend as I outline in the citations above. Again, this is clear, understandable, proper encyclopedic English. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what you were saying, in effect, was that the article's discussion of Aesthetic Realism's stance on homosexuality had to be written in Aesthetic Realist jargon, eg "changed from homosexuality." For my part, I never suggested that "changed from homosexuality" couldn't appear in direct quotations, if there actually is a need to directly quote someone (which I doubt there is). Endlessly repeating that "changed from homosexuality" is normal, acceptable English doesn't make it so. Your understanding of the English language, and of what kind of language is suitable for an encyclopedia, is obviously wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We will unfortunately have to agree to disagree about my understanding of the English language. The sentences in question concern how Sheldon Kranz described and felt about his change from homosexuality and should convey that accurately. For each of the reasons I detailed in my July 24 post the proposed changes will not do that. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments seemed to boil down to the claim that using any expression other than "changed from homosexuality" would somehow change the meaning of that section. You gave, and still have given, no reason for thinking that this is true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have given my reasons. The proposed edits change the meaning and import of Sheldon Kranz' words and are not accurate. I have provided my reasoning along with cited quotations above. Sadly, I don't think we will ever come to an agreement about this. However I think I have said enough for an objective editor to see what I am saying and understand my reasoning. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons were stupid. This is an encyclopedia, not the Sheldon Kranz vanity page. It's of no relevance that Kranz chose to use the specific expression, "changed from homosexuality". If we had to quote him directly, we could use that expression, of course, but there's no such need. The exact same meaning can certainly be conveyed in normal, correct English, eg we could simply say that Kranz claimed that he had changed his sexual orientation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand that you view my reasons as “stupid.” Obviously I disagree. I doubt a more objective reader/editor would share your opinion. Your suggested revision only confirms my original reasoning. We cannot use the word “claimed” since it not only changes Kranz’ meaning but would also violate WP policy. See Wikipedia: "Words to Watch" which states: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word "claim" is an expression of doubt; when used as in "John claimed he had not eaten the pie", it can imply he had in fact eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words; for example, "John said he did not eat the pie." Cyberpathfinder (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's revealing of the state this discussion has reached that you would focus only on one word (which does not, of course, change Kranz's meaning) rather than any of the broader issues at stake. Your position is pretty obviously bankrupt, and I doubt the larger Wikipedia community will have much sympathy with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It most definitely does change Kranz' meaning (I refer you to my posting of July 24 for the exact details) and also violates WP policy. But at least we are both confident in our positions and must, I am afraid, await the verdict of more neutrally-minded editors. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your post of July 24 was drivel. Let's look at the "exact details" of what you had to say there. According to you, the controversy was about "reporting in a straightforward fashion how Kranz himself described what occurred with him." You noted that Kranz's words were published, and said that the article "should reflect how Kranz expressed himself." There is no argument there, nor an explanation of how Wikipedia's policies supported your position. You simply asserted that because Kranz used a specific expression, the article absolutely must use it as well. You were wrong then and are wrong now. "Changed from homosexuality" is an illiterate expression, one that an encyclopedia would never use unless quoting someone directly. You also wrote that, "It is also clear that Kranz felt homosexuality as an impulsion of a kind he didn't like rather than as an 'attraction' or 'desire'." Apparently, you believed that this assertion of yours shows that the article must use the expression "he no longer felt impelled toward men" to described what happened when Kranz's sexual orientation allegedly changed. Again, no, it doesn't show that. The distinction between being sexually "impelled" toward men, on the one hand, and being sexually attracted to or desiring them on the other may be an important one in your mind, but that doesn't mean that there's any distinction at all in reality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would invite any neutral reader/editor who visits here to look at my July 24 posting and decide for themselves. Three quick points. 1) As I have said many times, "changed from homosexuality" is perfectly acceptable English which can be understood by anybody reading it. 2) The sentences in question are for the purpose of describing what Kranz himself felt about his homosexual feelings and the words already in the article accomplish that. I am not "asserting" anything. I am simply quoting Kranz' own words to show that how this editor wants to change this particular sentence would present Kranz' feelings incorrectly. 3) The discussion here would be elevated if editors refrained from gratuitous insults. Such unnecessary words as "weird," "stupid," "bankrupt," "drivel," and "illiterate" are not helpful. WP policy states: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia...When disagreements occur try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict...When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself..." I invite all the editors here, myself included, to move forward in this spirit. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments show two things. First, you don't understand, or choose not to understand, that it is perfectly legitimate, when writing an article, to summarize something a man said without using his exact words. Second, there's no point in discussing anything with an Aesthetic Realist. The best way forward for this article would be for Aesthetic Realists to be banned from editing it, not that I expect that to happen. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe they show that at all. The difference of opinion here is over whether the changes you have proposed "summarize" Sheldon Kranz' words or change their meaning and intent. I have outlined with specificity why the later is true. I am rather sure at one time or another many of the editors here have wanted to have those who disagreed with them banned.. But iIf editors got to ban those who disagreed with them Wikipedia would be a far less useful tool. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No one has suggested banning anyone for disagreeing. What helps to make Wikipedia a useful tool is that rabid point-of-view pushers who are interested in producing propaganda rather than describing reality can be banned, especially if they seek to establish ownership of an article. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Reality should always be accurately described and I'll say once again that gratuitous insults are not helpful to that process. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpathfinder is saying nothing that would convince anyone who isn't an Aesthetic Realist. Note that despite his claim to have shown "with specificity" why my change to the wording of the article would change its meaning, he hasn't even discussed the actual wording I used. The article currently states, "In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919–1980) was the first man to report that he changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation (he was no longer impelled toward men) to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life." My wording in contrast was, "In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919–1980) was the first man to report that he changed his sexual orientation through Aesthetic Realism. Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life." Does that make the article less accurate? No. Cyberpathfinder doesn't have any idea what he is saying. Responding to him serves no purpose, and I'd discourage others from doing so. Holding a request for comment might be an appropriate next step. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem we are just needlessly repeating ourselves. See my July 24 posting for an explanation with specifics as to why removing the words "he was no longer impelled toward men" and replacing them as suggested would change the meaning and intent of these sentences. I also agree that we need a neutral party to weigh in as the next appropriate step and have already said so. (See my comments on August 5.) It doesn't serve much of a useful purpose to have an ongoing back and forth at this point, especially with its attendant (and really unnecessary) disrespectful tone. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The self-referential nature of your comments ("see my previous posting where I say..", and things of that nature), helps show how utterly bankrupt your position is. A request for comment, or a posting on the neutral point of notice board, might be good steps forward. I have dragged my feet on this, but still intend to do something about it. I had been hoping that editors not so far involved in disputes here would take an interest in this article's outstanding problems, but unfortunately that just hasn't happened. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I have reverted changes to the lead Trouver made here. There were two main problems with Trouver's edit. It was not in accord with WP:LEAD, which dictates that the lead is meant to summarize the article. Simply removing material from the main body of the article and placing it in the lead instead is thus inappropriate. In addition, the wording "discontinued presentations and consultations on this change" appears to imply that Aesthetic Realism successfully changed people's sexual orientations, which is unacceptable, per WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're right; there's no reason for the AR boilerplate position on their gay-change doctrine to be in the article in three places. It's still in there in two places—the text, and in a footnote. I think it ought by rights to be quoted in the footnote only, which should be place after "In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality", with the rest of that paragraph deleted from the article body. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The controversy about changing homosexuality does not have to be present in the lead (I agree with TeeVeed here), particularly since this has not been taught for nearly a quarter of a century, and giving it such prominence is misleading to the public, yet if it remains here, the official statement of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation as to why it discontinued this subject must be presented. This is in accord with WP:LEAD because, unfortunately, this particular aspect of the philosophy, which is not central to it, has been "unduly weighted" in this article. The statement appears only once, and in the footnote, which, like all the footnotes in this article, is quoted in full. The statement is phrased in a way that is in keeping with WP:NPOV and it should not be reverted.Trouver (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the controversy about Aesthetic Realism's attempts to change people's sexual orientation does have to be present in the lead. It's true that the Foundation hasn't promoted change attempts for a long time, but the controversy has permanently affected the image of Aesthetic Realism. Placing the Foundation's full statement about the issue in the lead is clearly undue. The full statement belongs only in the main body of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having the Foundation's position stated in the lead.Trouver (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's overly long, tendentious special pleading, that is more appropriately covered in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article. It can't be more detailed than the article is, or it ceases to be a lead. It can't contain items that are not covered in the body of the article. You want to make it into a billboard for points you want to emphasize; that's not what a lead is meant to do. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. If you are going to mention in the lead the controversy the Foundation faced over the change from homosexuality, NPOV requires the Foundation's official explanation as to why this was discontinued. If you prefer, we can omit the entire controversy in the lead, since (a) it is not central to the philosophy being described, and (b) it has not been taught for more than 20 years.Trouver (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Perhaps you should actually review them. The lead is a summary; the lead is concise. The lead should be written in a clear accessible style. The wording you propose fulfills none of those requirements. As to WP:NPOV: it is silent on the issue of "official" explanations. If you want to contend that NPOV has any applicability to your preferred version, you're going to have to actually outline a logical argument supporting your contention. Providing a link to WP:NPOV and waving your hands doesn't cut it. The version you are repeatedly reverting from already states that AR stopped publicly stating its position on homosexuality in 1990. So your version can't be preferred on that basis. In your version the AR position statement appears in the article four times. (the lead, the section on homosexuality, footnote 1, footnote 91.) That's not NPOV, that's an attempt to overwhelm by sheer repetition. Three times is more than enough.

You must stop simply reverting. You can try and make a logical case for your preferred wording on the talk page; you have failed to do so thus far. Or you can initiate a getting a third opinion, initiate another discussion at the Wikipedia:dispute resolution noticeboard or begin a Wikipedia:request for comment. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion is not the best option here. It's really only for situations in which two editors disagree, and no one else has commented; in this case, more than two editors have expressed a view on the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You certainly have a right to strong opinions and a political agenda, but I am afraid they are clouding your ability to be fair and impartial about this article. I have removed the Foundation's explanation from the article itself, but insist on its presence in the lead IF the controversy about homosexuality is mentioned there. Please do not revert this change, as it would show a sense of ownership (which has already been criticized) and an unwillingness to allow an accurate and fair presentation of the subject of this article.Trouver (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, please note that the Aesthetic Realists are just trying to wear you down. Their strategy is to just object, object, object, until you give up. They can't prevail on the merits of their arguments, but they keep arguing anyway, at length, so that you waste your time here on the Talk page rather than editing the article. They've learned enough of the WP lingo so they bandy policy names about, as though they were anywhere close to adhering to them, in an effort to seem legitimate, but their goal, as always, is to keep the article free of criticism (or perceived criticism) of AR. If you make a change, they complain bitterly that you didn't get consensus first, and you'll never get consensus because they won't give it to you. If they make a ridiculous edit and you revert it, they complain (as Trouver did) that you're asserting "ownership" of the article. If you try to remove their POV to make the article neutral, they'll claim (as Trouver did) that you have a "political agenda". (These guys really should really win some kind of award for irony.)

The question to me is, are we really required to keep "discussing" edits with editors whose agenda is clear and who consistently edit (and discuss) in bad faith? WP rightly stopped accepting similar edits from Scientologists, for similar reasons. Fruitless discussion with agenda-driven people who don't respect Wikipedia policies and won't give an inch is just a waste of time, IMHO, and unbiased editors ought to just write a good article. Let's remember, this is an encyclopedia.

For my part, I'd be happy to agree to cease editing the article, if the Aesthetic Realists will do the same, and leave all the editing to independent editors who have no experience with the organization.

As for specific edits, of course the lede is supposed to be a summary. And of course the thing that AR is most-known for (its efforts to turn gays straight) means that a link to Conversion Therapy is not only appropriate but necessary. Etc. And duh.MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Trouver, you're in no position to "insist" on anything. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. To remove the Foundation's explanation from the article itself, and place it in the lead instead, violates WP:LEAD, as has been pointed out several times now. Your comments about me are irrelevant and don't address the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

FKC, in addition to trying to wear you down, they're also just trying to waste your time fighting over small changes to the article. Even if you succeed in keeping the explanatory stuff out of the lede, and think you've won, they've really just tied up your time so much that you couldn't pursue other, more substantive changes. I'm not sure it's a good idea for any of us to spend so much time putting Band-Aids™ on the problem. As such, I'd like to discuss a ground-up rewrite. And before we do that, we should decide whether we should spin-off one or two other articles. For example, Scientology has at least three: one for the religion, one for the main organization, and one for controversies. What do you think about having at least two articles, one strictly devoted to the philosophy, and another devoted to the Foundation, its work, and its controversies? MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are more familiar with Aesthetic Realism than I am, so I would probably defer to your judgment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll suggest that we start a second article, and hold off on a third unless and until the second article grows unwieldy. I'd like to help with a ground-up rewrite of this article, and the creation of the second article, but I won't have any time until October at the earliest. Of course, I don't expect you to wait until then if you're eager to get started, though I'm not sure whether you and Outerlimits alone will be able to combat the Aesthetic Realists' efforts to block each and every improvement you try to make. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearly unmanageable at this time. The best hope as this stage would be to bring the issue to the attention of the neutral point of view noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the NPOV Noticeboard doesn't appear to have any enforcement powers, what would be the point of going that route? I checked it, and I see long-winded discussions with no resolution, same as here. By using the noticeboard, we'd simply be moving our fruitless discussions to a different page...unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something? MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The neutral point of view noticeboard is not a very good option. But poor option that it is, it's still probably the best option available in the circumstances. I doubt ANI would be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only venue that might be able to exert enough power to enable the cleaning out of this Augean stable is the Arbitration committee. It would be an excruciatingly long procedure. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to try to get Arb Com to take an interest, if you think that's a better option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that at this point I don't think I have the patience required to do anything but play a supportive role in any such pursuit. I do think that extraordinary measures are needed, but it's very difficult to get such measures enacted. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We have to go through a proper mediation first before we can apply to ArbCom. Here's my suggestion: When I have time (two months from now at the earliest), I'll post drafts of a rewrite of this article and a split-off article, inviting experienced and fair editors like FKC and Outerlimits to help me get it right. Once it's good, I'll post them as the new articles. The Aesthetic Realists will object immediately and unreasonably, reverting everything willy-nilly. After a few revert-restore-revert cycles, we'll apply for mediation. Mediation will fail because the Aesthetic Realists won't agree to a proper article and we won't agree to a ridiculous one. Then we apply to ArbCom, which can compare the new, proper articles to the travesty that's currently posted, and it should be pretty easy for them to make their decision. How's that? MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can take whatever approach you like to improving this article, obviously. I'm not sure whether your proposal above is a good one or not, but I'm glad you still think it's possible to do something. I haven't given up yet entirely either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13