Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

History section

The history section is not really an appropriate place for long quotations, especially not those that repeat other parts of the article. Some overlap with other parts of the article is inevitable, but it should be kept to a minimum. Born Gay (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked again, I take back the suggestion that Destinero's addition repeats other parts of the article, but it remains true that quoting large chunks of text in that way is not a good approach. Everything Destinero added here [1] would have been better summed up in a sentence or two. Please summarise things and keep the history section concise. Born Gay (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please choose constructive and helpful approach and try it. My english is apparently not so good as yours to reformulate/summarize. Thank you for underestanding. --Destinero (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing relevant policies such as due weight and summary style. Born Gay (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Major changes needed here

I no longer have much confidence in the way this article is organized. Malleus rather politely told me that it was no good, but I rejected his criticism (see talk archive 5). Thinking about it, however, I think maybe Malleus has a point. I remain doubtful that purely chronological organization would work, but the country by country organization that is here at the moment is not ideal (a large portion of rather important information that doesn't fit into the country by country arrangement had to be excluded for this reason, while some of the information that is here may be unnecessarily detailed). It might be possible to develop some compromise between these models. Where article content is concerned, I am now more receptive to the argument that there need to be sources to establish that something is conversion/reparative therapy before mentioning it here, but I still need to think about that. To any of the several editors who've complained about how I have edited the article, I'd like to say that I have listened to your arguments, and would like to discuss any of the major changes that may be needed. Born Gay (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness, and wish you luck, but I no longer feel I can contribute. I don't agree with what the contributor said that was deleted from the discussion, both for the way it was said, and because I do not think reverting the article to the start is the answer. What I would suggest would be reverting the article to a version that preceded the insertion of the material that is problematic, and then go through what was added subequently and selectively re-introduce what helped improve the article but leaving out what hasn't. That might be better done in a sandbox, and then re-introduced, and interested editors could make comments and assist with editing in a less heated environment that on a live article. In the process, the best way to re-organise the article may become clearer, and doing this with hindsight may help to see more clearly what was valuable, what worked, what improved the article and what did not. It is a lot of work, but as you seem very committed to this article, I am sure you will manage it. I would also ask you to keep in mind some of the points I have made, as they were intended constructively, and may be relevant for some of the material you wish to retain/reinsert. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether you contribute in future or not is up to you. Some of your earlier contributions were definitely helpful. I have reconsidered my position on some issues, and am working on a discussion of Wikipedia's policies as they apply to the article, and the sources available [2]. My only other comment is that any major changes need to be discussed before being made. Born Gay (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't fault anything you say there, and this is very helpful. I won't make any more changes, but may make points or suggestions here if appropriate, and will leave it up to you to make changes. As for the Guardian report, I am happy for you to rephrase it in the way that clearly attributes the comment to an individual if you want to, as long as this is in the context of the critical tone of the article as a whole. I have come across little on this subject in the national media here, and what there has been has been critical. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

as changes are being made

There isn't much, if any, mention of converting people with heterosexual orientations to homosexual orientations. This might seem facetious, but the absence of info on that is quite telling. Anyhow, this might be easier to address: the article presents sexual orientation as a dichotomy, but models as old as Kinsey's are continuous, and some newer models are multidimensional. Do any conversion therapies purport to move someone from a 5 or 6 on the Kinsey scale to a 1 or 2? 68.84.9.217 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of converting straights to being gay here because this has seldom if ever been done, and hasn't to my knowledge ever been called "conversion therapy." Born Gay (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

there's some easy joke about alcohol being used to do this but agree I've never heard of such a thing although teh religious right wing might call it homosexual recruitment. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

American medical consensus

User Joshuajohanson has recently added a paragraph about the new American Psychological Association resolution to the American medical consensus section (eg, the paragraph that starts, "Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions..."). Now this new resolution is certainly important and it should be taken into account, but I am very displeased with the way that this paragraph has been added. It does not make sense to have a (very long) direct quotation from the APA for this particular resolution while everything else in that section is a summary of what the various professional bodies have said. There is nothing about this new resolution that means that it needs to be explained through a direct quotation when all the previous resolutions have been summarised. This combination of summary with direct quotation reads very poorly, and effect is jarring and confusing. Born Gay (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not put in a paragrph. I put in a summary, which was rejected, so I put in a small quote which was replaced with a paragraph. I agree with you, but simply removing is also uncalled for. Really the whole thing needs to be reworked because the consensus now is that psychotherapy can change sexual orientation identity and "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." Old methods are ineffective at changing sexual orientation, but recent ones have yet to be determined whether they are effective or not at changing sexual orientation. After all, it's not like anyone is born gay. Sexual orientation developes across a person's lifetime. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You should have discussed this on the talk page and tried to develop consensus about an acceptable summary. That's our task as editors - to summarise things. Adding a long direct quotation is unnecessary and uncalled for. I have not removed that quotation as yet, but I may well do so. Oh, and please try to avoid subtle digs at my user name. That's also uncalled for and unhelpful. I've made my views clear with the name I've chosen, but other than that, I'm not here to discuss this issue, and neither should you be. Born Gay (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk. The APA has changed its views to be in favor of LGBT people with unwanted homosexual attractions to pursue their own course of action. I think this article should reflect this. What are your thoughts? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are, for the moment, that all editors should avoid further edit warring over this, calm down if necessary, and discuss an acceptable way of revising the American medical consensus section, if that is necessary. Please avoid further changes before things have been discussed properly. An acceptable way of changing the section would most certainly not mean dumping the new resolution into the article in the form of a long, undigested quotation while leaving everything else unchanged. Born Gay (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a WP:3RR warning on Joshua's talk page, so that he is aware that he has breached this, but I do not intend to report it - I wanted to be sure that he was aware of this. Mish (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From reading the resolution, it seems to me that the main jist of what they are saying is that people should be able to determine their own destinies. There is nothing wrong with an LGB identity which includes pursuing same-sex relationships, and there is nothing wrong with a religious identity which includes celibacy or faithfulness in an opposite sex relationship. There is no evidence whether or not recent approaches can change sexual orientation, since all research on the subject has been done on older approaches. Furthermore, promising a change in sexual orientation when one is not possible is damaging, so they recommend not promising clients a complete change in sexual orientation. However, psychotherapy has been effective in changing a client's sexual orientation identity, behaviors and values, which have enabled clients to a live a life in accordance with their religious identity, which may be stronger then their sexual identity. Other clients have chosen to alter their religious identity to fit their sexual identity. Both identities are valid, and the therapist should help the client determine their own identity, without giving preference to either the sexual identity or religious identity. I'll clean up the prose later, but did I get any part wrong? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this entire section needs very careful work to make sure that it is consistent and reflects the sources it is based upon properly. The first few sentences ("The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness[7][9][91] or whether recent methods "do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." Older methods have been found to be ineffective at changing sexual orientatoin.'") strike me as being rather confusing, and look like an attempt to combine or reconcile several different sources that may not be altogether consistent with each other. Born Gay (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

This article is on my watchlist for some reason, probably from being added to some noticeboard or other. Its been popping up at the top every time I check my watchlist and sure enough, there is an edit war. I have protected for a week; work things out in talk. If you need wider input, ask for it on whatever noticeboard you consider appropriate, I suggest Article rfc. But stop the edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding: don't forget about {{editprotected}}. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why that has been happening is the recent American Psychological Association statement about conversion therapy (which I am still reading; I am about half way through). There has been a rush on the part of some editors to try to change the article in response to this new statement, but there has been no agreement about how to do that. Joshuajohanson started the ball rolling by adding a statement about the resolution without proposing the change on the talk page first; Destinero found that unacceptable, leading Joshuajohanson to add a long direct quotation, which in my view did not improve anything but only confused matters. The right thing for Joshuajohanson to have done would have been to propose changing the article on the talk page first so that the issue could be considered carefully, rather than starting such an unseemly rush to change the article. Born Gay (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please leave banners in place

I would like to ask Benjiboi to please leave the talk banners in place. They are necessary, maybe now more than ever; there is no good reason to remove them. You already removed them once before, and I added them again. Please, please don't keep doing that. We already have an edit war on the article and definitely do not need one on the talk page as well. If you think that the banners are not necessary, then propose removal on the talk page and remove them when and if you get consensus to do that. Otherwise just leave them alone. Born Gay (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will tell Born Gay that there's no reason to litter talkpages with WARNING and CONTROVERSY when there really only seems to be one editor causing much issues. I've trimmed from four to two, hope that works OK for everyone. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Banners are not "litter." They serve a necessary purpose on Wikipedia. That's why they exist. If you were to unilaterally remove such banners from multiple talk pages on the grounds that they are not necessary, then you would likely be blocked for disruption or at least warned. I do not know why you would remove the banners again, without discussion, when we have already been through this once before, and you know that I support the banners. Your use of the edit summary "cleanup" implies that what you did is uncontroversial and that no one would object, but you should know that that is wrong. You also appear to be implying I am responsible for all the problems on this page. That is wrong and a personal attack. Your comments and actions here are adding an additional and unnecessary element of controversy and unpleasantness. Born Gay (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All four are hardly needed but I don't wish to engage you on this, bye. -- Banjeboi 12:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit history of this article shows that the banners definitely are needed. The edit wars that lead to protection of the article would not have taken place if editors had followed the suggestion to discuss substantial changes on the talk page first. Born Gay (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why revert?

I would like to ask user:Whatever404 why he reverted to the article to that particular version. It's unclear to me what good reason there could be for doing that. That version is inferior in a number of respects to more recent versions - the lead, in particular, is less polished. It has a sort of half-baked feel to it, which I managed to remove with some effort. Please explain why you felt it necessary to do that, because that revert frankly has lowered the quality of the article. Born Gay (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I wrote the above before seeing that KillerChihuahua restored the version of the lead that I wrote. With all respect to Destinero and Joshuajohanson, both of whom have been trying to change that version by adding WP:UNDUE things and making it longer and more complicated, I think it is best to keep the lead as short and simple as it can be while still conveying the main points. If you don't like that version and want to change it, then you need to discuss the issue and get consensus on talk page, as I've pointed out several times. Born Gay (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't restore anything! All I did was protect and add a protection icon. Check the history.[3] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have had a second look, and you appear to be correct. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what happened; apparently I didn't check carefully enough. It should be pointed out that the current version of the lead contains a glaring error; it attributes a statement to the American Psychological Association that was actually made by the American Psychiatric Association. Destinero corrected that (which I think was the only helpful change he made to the lead), but Whatever404's edit undid the correction. Born Gay (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Freud and Dorner

There seems to be a new content dispute, this time over the material on Sigmund Freud and Gunter Dorner. The way to determine what is appropriate content for the article is to look at what the reliable sources say about conversion therapy. There are plenty of sources that indicate that Freud was an enormous influence on the development of conversion therapy, and so the material on him is certainly relevant and should stay here. That includes Freud's attempts at treating his lesbian patient, which have been specifically described (by Jack Drescher, in a reliable source) as a form of reparative therapy. Gunter Dorner is an entirely different story; there isn't even a single source that describes what he did as conversion therapy, so really it has no relevance at all and should be removed. In the interests of full disclosure, I was the one who added the Dorner material in the first place, but that seems like a mistake to me now. Born Gay (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Freud has a child article which was correctly linked until you edited it out twice (while bizarrely enough accusing me of edit warring!). The bulk of the content belongs in Freud's article and not here. I am open to discussion on Dorner; I note he does not have a child article, so any content deemed notable and appropriate must be in this article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The material on Freud does belong here. That's because this is an article about conversion therapy (also called reparative therapy), and multiple sources establish that Freud was an enormous influence on conversion therapy. Freud has also been described by reliable sources as practicing reparative therapy, so how is it not relevant?

As for Dorner, there is no reason why the content about what he did "must" be here, since there's not even one source to show that it is conversion therapy or has anything to do with conversion therapy. Regarding edit warring, I was not trying to accuse you of this - simply observing that as an administrator, and one who recently protected the article due to content disputes, it would be bad form to start doing multiple reverts. I shouldn't be doing it either, of course, but then ADM's changes, which started the latest round of reverts, ought to have been discussed first. Born Gay (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You have, alas, failed to respond to anything I've said in any helpful or productvie way. You say Freud was important and should be included; no argument. However, how much should be included? And there is no question that there should be a link to the main article. When there are child articiles, a brief summary is placed here, then a main template is placed with the summary. You have removed the template, and greatly expanded the content, creating dup0lication and going against standard practice.

Regarding Dorner, I stated that "any content deemed notable and appropriate must be in this article"; I most certainly did not say anything he did "must be here" as you erroneously claim. Igf its not notable or pertinent, then by all means eliminate it.

REgarding your "edit warring" comment: you were rude and the warning was inappropriate. Do you often walk up to newlyweds and tell them not to screw around on each other? No? Then by all means, reconsider warning people to not do something they've shown no sign of doing. It s ironic that you were edit warring yourself when you made the comment! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, this discussion seems to have got off on the wrong foot. I am sorry if you find my comments rude, I honestly didn't intend them that way. I'm afraid, however, that, from my perspective, it is you who has failed to respond to my points. Plenty of reliable sources indicate that Freud's work is relevant to or forms part of conversion therapy. That establishes that the content is appropriate, and that's the important point. ADM discussed nothing before cutting out a crucially relevant part of the article, which is necessary to readers to understand later developments in conversion therapy and can most usefully be included here. Turning it into a different article wasn't a good idea at all, not if that is the only content it is going to include (it makes no sense to appeal to the existence of a child article if it is not clear that the article should exist, which I'm still not sure about). The Dorner material is all totally irrelevant, as there aren't any sources that indicate a connection with converison therapy. You might have considered that before deciding to readd it. Born Gay (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You say that, "When there are child articiles, a brief summary is placed here". If someone (I don't necessarily mean anyone in particular) were really determined to follow that approach, then probably every section of this article could be spun off into a different article, and this article would then be reduced to nothing but a shell, consisting of a handful of brief summaries. Does that really seem like a good idea? Born Gay (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that because Freud didn't hold much confidence in changing sexual orientation, but because of his significance, a separate article on his views on homosexuality makes sense, with a summary here that points out he looked at the matter, but considered it pointless, and linking to the main article. What we have here is too much of his views on homosexuality, which is of limited relevance to the topic as a whole. Mish (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Freud's lack of confidence in changing sexual orientation concerned mainly his awareness of the limitations of psychoanalysis, which he regarded as poorly suited to this task. He seems in fact to have been quite certain that homosexuality could be changed through hypnosis, and he was optimistic about the possibilities of changing homosexuality through surgery (an optimism that was quite misplaced, as it turned out). The issue is in any case not necessarily relevant, since the sources show that Freud was a crucial influence on conversion therapy, regardless of his scepticism about psychoanalysis as a change method. A separate article on Freud's views about homosexuality may nevertheless be justified, but if so what content should be here and what should be there needs to be carefully discussed here first; it shouldn't just be thrown from one article to another without talking about it first. You're right that not all of the material in the Freud section here is directly relevant, but it is helpful background material nonetheless. Similar material is included about many subsequent figures, and it really will not do to remove it without discussion. Born Gay (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the Freud section could be cut back somewhat, and I am not necessarily opposed to that (I have cut it back myself, several times already). But look at the material ADM cut out [4]. Most of it wasn't material that might better be in different articles - it was directly relevant here, since it concerned things that Freud actually did that have been described as conversion/reparative therapy, including his attempt to treat a lesbian patient. ADM may be right that some material can go, but it should hardly have been that material. The recent bout of edit warring could have been avoided entirely if he had simply discussed his concerns on the talk page. Born Gay (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be discussed, I agree. Mish (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Revising Freud section

In response to some of the comments here, I'm going to try to cut the Freud section back into something more reasonable and on-topic. I am working on a revised version in my sandbox. When I have something that I think is good enough to go in the article, I will comment here, and make the edit if there is agreement. In the meanwhile, I would appreciate it if ADM's version of that section not be restored, since his approach to cutting it back was less than careful and removed much appropriate material. Born Gay (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to draw on the sandbox edit I started a while back, if it helps. User:MishMich/CV history Mish (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the version in my sandbox at the moment [5] should be basically OK, and would like other editors' views on this. That version is much shorter than the current version, and every word of it is strictly on-topic. I think it might be helpful to add a couple more sources, though, so I would like to leave this one or two more days before making the change. Born Gay (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Patients' reasons for wanting to become heterosexual were often superficial, including fear of social disapproval". This could be re-worded. I understand what it means, but people's fear of social disapproval is not superficial in itself. Mish (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What rewording do you suggest? It's meant to be a summary of Freud's views on this subject, remember - we're trying to say here what Freud thought rather than what we would consider true. Born Gay (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'superficial' part is not my interpretation, by the way, it is what is stated by the source used, in this case Lewes's book. This is Lewes discussing Freud's view of why attempts at changing homosexuality failed, on page 34: "Part of the reason for this lack of success, he thought, had to do with the superficiality of motivation on the part of the patient to be cured." Lewes then quotes Freud saying "The homosexual is not able to give up the object of his pleasure, and one cannot convince him that if he changed to the other object he would find again the pleasure that he has renounced", and then quotes Freud again on his view that most homosexuals appear for treament because of "external motives, such as social disadvantages and danger attaching to the choice of object". Born Gay (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Hyper3, the changes you want to make to the lead are not backed up by the sources you used. The first one [6] does not say anything about the definition of conversion therapy, or how opponents in particular define it, and the second one [7] does not even use the term "conversion therapy", and is therefore irrelevant. Born Gay (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3's latest revert [8] violates the three revert rule, WP:3RR, and this is a blockable offense. I have warned this user of this. Born Gay (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Looking again, I am not sure that this is a violation of 3RR. It is however blatant edit warring, and the effect of it has been to introduce material into the article that is clearly not supported by the sources used. Born Gay (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous definition has no sources, mine at least has something. The sources do not need to say anything about the definition of conversion therapy; all they need to do is define it in the course of making a summary of their position. NARTH will of course not use the term "conversion therapy." In the footnote to the phrase quoted, they show their unhappiness in referring to gays and lesbians, believing that it begs the question. The examiner clearly uses the commonly phrased reference to gays and lesbians. Both sources are valid.

As for edit warring, I have been responding to your critique; you have been reverting out of hand without attempting to improve with further edits.

The definition needs to reflect the debate to be more inclusive. Otherwise, the entry will misinform and not be neutral. Hyper3 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong in thinking that what you changed was a "definition" of conversion therapy. It was an explanation of what conversion therapy involves, and that's not the same thing. It was sourced. And yes, definitions of conversion therapy do have be based on sources that define conversion therapy, otherwise that's an original research analysis of a source, something which is totally unacceptable, not "valid". NARTH's not using the term "conversion therapy" isn't an excuse for you to use something that does not use the term "conversion therapy" to define conversion therapy. Your comments on edit warring suggest you may have misunderstood the policy. Your behaviour does qualify. Born Gay (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you made a reference to 'being bold' in your edit summary, note that WP:WAR states, "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking." I had objected strongly when you made that change to the lead, and reverted you, so what you did was edit warring, not being bold. Born Gay (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When you objected, I improved my edit - this is not edit warring. Your continual reversion without discussion is edit warring. Hyper3 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Born Gay

I'm a bit bored of this. Let's forget about who was edit warring and deal with the problem in hand! Hyper3 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS a bit later here in the UK - I'm going to bed, but will take this up with you again soon!Hyper3 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:WAR, which you seem to have misunderstood. If another editor objects to your changes and reverts them, then making the edit over and over again is edit warring in all except a small number of circumstances, none of which apply here. It doesn't make any difference whether you make the edit in a slightly different way after the first few reverts. Regarding the content issue, you misused sources to support statements that they did not, in fact, support, which was inappropriate original research, and will I'm sure be eventually reverted either by me or by another editor. Born Gay (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The warring is over. The discussion begins.

You make the claim that a definition must be constructed from a source that self-identifies as a definition; yet you yourself say that there are very few sources that do this. Show me where this is made explicit in wikipedia. Making the judgement as to what is relevant is not in itself OR. Both sources are clearly relevant. the problem is that, in the context of the debate, those who believe in addressing feelings of unwanted same sex attraction do not want to call the person experiencing the feelings gay or lesbian; to do so (for them) is to beg the question. See the footnote in the NARTH article. the fairest way of dealing with this is by citing the definition from both sides, otherwise the article starts off biased. Hyper3 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider it my responsibility to inform you about Wikipedia policy. You are free to look it up for yourself. What you have added to the lead is original research and needs to be removed. I'm not interested in the issue you mention, as it changes nothing where policy is concerned. We base things on reliable sources here, not personal opinion. Born Gay (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that the recent edit by Whatever404, which makes the article state that opponents define conversion therapy "as methods intended to convert bisexual, lesbian, and gay people to heterosexuality", worsens the original research problem. I accept that the edit was well-intentioned, but the source being used does not mention bisexuals (or lesbians either, for that matter). I think it's probably simpler for the article to say that conversion therapy tries to change same-sex attracted people, without mentioning all the different groups and sub-groups that this category might possibly cover.

And to explain things a little more clearly to Hyper3: there's no need for me to show that the no original research policy specifically covers definitions, because it's a general rule that forbids adding content to articles that is not properly backed up by sources, which is what you did. I think you will find that trying to argue around policy is a pointless endeavour, as it's clear enough. Born Gay (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of policy - nothing is forbidden here, unlike WP:BLP. Policies and guidelines are what they say, are not absolute, they direct and guide, but are not to be followed blindly - they are not rules or laws. Consensus is not negotiable (but what constitutes consensus is open to discussion). Mish (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What you say is in principle true, but it also doesn't resolve the issue at hand. There is a policy against original research, and it shouldn't be casually violated. I see that Destinero has reverted Hyper3 [9], and quite rightly, too. I'd urge Hyper3 not to make any more reverts in the absence of agreement for the changes he made. Born Gay (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at OR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I have quoted a reliable source that directly relates to the topic. You are still suggesting that my edit was OR. Please help me understand what you are talking about, as I plan to reintroduce a definition that is not so blatantly POV. Hyper3 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you quoted reliable sources that directly related to the topic of the article. They did not, however, directly support the information as it was presented, so it was original research. You again seem to be suggesting that the first sentences of the lead are a "POV" definition of conversion therapy. They are neither a definition of conversion therapy, nor are they POV. They are an explanation of the most important aspect of conversion therapy, and are based directly on reliable sources. Born Gay (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I look at a source, and quote it word for word, footnote where I got it from, and you say that the quote does not support the information as it was presented, and that it was WP:OR. Perhaps you will forgive me, but I clearly do not understand what the problem is here. Am I being dense? Can anyone else help me get this? Hyper3 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You presented the quotes as definitions of conversion therapy. Neither of the sources quoted was in any way concerned with defining conversion therapy, so, yes, once again, that was original research. Born Gay (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead currently says:

“ Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, involves methods intended to convert bisexual, lesbian and gay people to heterosexuality. ”

I believe that this fails to communicate the sense of reparative therapy that such therapists (herafter RTs) could recognise. Surely this controversial topic should recognise what RTs think they are doing, even if for the sake of neutrality, what others think is reflected also. I have found a relevant quotation that sums up, what RTs think they are doing: "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions." In the literature it is common for RTs to avoid using the terms "gay" and "lesbian" although they may use the word "homosexual." This is because they are trying to distinguish sexual activity from sexual identity. Indeed, the language of "conversion" is also missing. However misguided anyone may perceive this, in order to understand the RT, opponents must be generous enough to allow the RT voice to be heard. I would humbly suggest that this offers opponents the chance to refute the RT case more appropriately, as hearing people clearly allows for a rebuttal to be formulated more accurately. In other words, it is in no one's interest to silence opposing voices, indeed the amplification of difference leads to more constructive interaction. Any response? Hyper3 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What reparative therapists may happen to think is irrelevant if their views have not been presented in reliable published sources. So far as I know, there are no reliable sources that provide a definition of conversion therapy from a pro-reparative therapy viewpoint. The quotation you offer is not a definition of conversion or reparative therapy, and should not be presented as one. Born Gay (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fully support Bor Gay position in this case, even if we had different views on other issues in the past, since I am convinced such position is compatible with Wikipedia policies ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. + Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research."). It's simple. No discussions about that. --Destinero (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Mish (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lead paragraph

According to WP:LEAD:

“ The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. ”

Therefore a description of reparative therapy does not need to be a definition to be included in the Lead section. An appropriate, relevant, and referenced description is all that is required. As the article is about reparative therapy, failing to give a definition that matches with proponent's views (admittedly, in the context of the views of any opposition) would be misleading. Currently, this article needs such a description to achieve WP:NPOV. Hyper3 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the point of the statement you quoted from NARTH ("providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions"). It does not seem to be meant as either a definition or a description of any specific kind of therapy. Nor is it quite true that the article is about reparative therapy, since that has been defined both as a general term for attempts to convert people away from being gay and as a term for a specific kind of change therapy. Both of those points of view are acknowledged in the article, which as a whole is about reparative therapy only in the former sense. Born Gay (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If the article is not about reparative therapy, why does the opening line quote it as a synonym? You seem to be suggesting that the article is not about reparative therapy; I would suggest that as the direct successor to conversion therapy, reparative therapy is very much relevant to the article.

The quote accurately describes the motivation and the goals of reparative therapy, though we cannot know the intentions of the author. The lead is not the place to describe the actual nature of the therapy, though that does need including too, further down. The issue is that there is a clear divergence of opinion as to what reparative therapy is attempting to do, and this needs to be reflected in the article, and specifically in the lead, with a source close to the centre of those who currently offer such therapy. Hyper3 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reparative therapy is used in two different senses: A) as a synonym for conversion therapy in general (as the lead explains) and B) as the name for a particular kind of conversion therapy. The entire article is about reparative therapy in sense A) but only one small section of it (in Theories and Techniques) is about reparative therapy in sense B). The quote from NARTH isn't a description of the motives or the goals of reparative therapy in either sense - it doesn't even use the term "reparative therapy." Born Gay (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote doesn't need to use the term reparative therapy when it comes in a context that is clearly all about reparative therapy. The quote allows those whose view reflect the reparative therapy environment to speak in their own terms about what they think they are doing. They could not identify with the current version, and therefore the current version is defective. What is being added is a reference to the sense of distress, talking about feelings rather than orientation, and leaving out labels like gay and lesbian. These three things are important for reparative therapy to be adequately represented in this article. Hyper3 (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The context establishes no such thing. NARTH members would probably understand reparative therapy in the narrower sense of a specific kind of conversion therapy, and it's not at at all clear that that is what that document is discussing. The quote explains nothing about what reparative therapy might be or involve, and so is poorly chosen and quite unsuitable for the lead. That NARTH might not like the current version of the lead has nothing, by itself, to do with whether the lead is NPOV or not. Born Gay (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) An older version has this under the Medical Consensus which I think is much more NPOV, though it doesn't include the most recent results from the task force[10]:

The medical and mental health consensus in the United States is that there is "no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments",[1] but that there is anecdotal evidence for both harm and success.[5][2][6][7] All major U.S. mental health organizations have expressed concerns about such practices. The American Psychological Association states that "it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons."[2]

The ethics guidelines of major U.S. mental health organizations vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association) to recommending that ethical practitioners refrain from using conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or referring patients to others who do (American Counseling Association). The organizations do, however, respect the client's right to self-determination. As a result of the medical view, conversion therapy is a largely marginalized practice.[3] Today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex.[8] Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any obvious way in which the medical consensus section of that version of the article, which is very old, is superior to what is there now. I find that version to be poorly organized, and somewhat confusing. What does that have to do with the lead anyway? Born Gay (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

{{rfctag}}

The lead needs to describe what conversion/reparative therapists think they are doing. This does not need to exclude any mainstream opinions. An article about a minority viewpoint should clearly state what that minority viewpoint is. Wikipedia articles ought to show neutrality. —Hyper3 (via posting script) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead should not describe what conversion/reparative therapists think they are doing. That is firstly because their views on that are not necessarily different from those of opponents of conversion therapy (though they obviously evaluate it differently) and secondly because, to the extent that their views may differ (something that has not even been demonstrated) theirs would be a fringe view. This is not an article about a fringe view of conversion therapy, it's an article about conversion therapy itself, and it needs to reflect the mainstream view. Born Gay (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit that I have in mind is this:

“ Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, is defined by opponents as methods intended to convert gay and lesbian people to heterosexuality, and by adherents, as methods "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions." ”

I have found objections to this is far unconvincing (read the previous exchange for further information). I am not stuck on this edit, but feel that something needs to be added to help the reader understand what this is about from several points of view, especially as the article is about a particular minority approach. Hyper3 (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The view is not fringe, but minority. There is a big difference. Whatever the article is about, it should accurately portray the view of adherents as well as opponents. Hyper3 (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what they think they are doing is correct - it would be what they say they think they are doing, and reliable sources suggest that what they say they think they are doing is misleading. The recent APA report says that what they say they think they are doing is not what is happening. They say they think they can change people from having homosexual attraction in way that minimise this, or even have heterosexual attraction. The APA has said quite categorically that there is no evidence to support claims like these. I don't see that people's delusions, even if they are experts, need a place in the lead of an article in which they only feature marginally. They feature marginally, because the therapy is seen as fringe by the mainstream psychological and psychiatric communities. The only people who take it seriously usually do so from a religious perspective, and the APA has also stated that religious interests have no expertise on these matters, and should stick to religion. It is a fringe theory, because very few practitioners in this area hold it as having any merit, and there is no evidence to support it. It is to psychtherapy what 'The Holy Blood the Holy Grail' is to religious history. Mish (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that the reason that this edit is opposed is that those who oppose it are committed to a different view. And I understand that each person is shaped within the community in which they live, and find it hard to see outside that environment, as I find it hard to see beyond my own thoughts and feelings and the community within which I live. The point here is not that the view is right, it is that it is verifiably sourced and relevant. The article on conversion therapy ought to be able to present what those committed to conversion therapy believe, whilst also presenting other viewpoints. There may be more people committed to sexual reorientation as a theory of sexuality than there are those who self-identify as gay or lesbian; neither positions can be called "fringe." I do not think that wikipedia is the place for censorship; it isn't even the place to discuss the relevant merits of the case; it is an encyclopaedia that categorises knowledge for the benefit of all. Some will use it to inform themselves better on what they believe; some will use it to inform themselves about what their opponents believe. It is about information not point of view. A neutral point of view will allow all views to be aired that are not fringe and with due weight. I am arguing for wikipedia policy, (which seems very fair to all in cases like this) not for a particular perspective. Hyper3 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing censored - both NARTH and Nicolosi have their own articles, and they are covered within the text of the article. In the lead, it is a question of weight. If the lead was full of LGBT views on this, you might have a point, but it hasn't. It has the position statements of organisations of the two APAs and other such professional associations. These are neutral views in their own right, and they are the professional position on this. There is no alternative view to this other than partisan views. Putting in partisan views creates its own problems, especially in the lead, because then those would need to be counterbalanced by other partisan views - groups like Stonewall (UK) or Pink Therapy. What you have at the moment is professional positions based on findings, not opinion, opinion position which clearly states that there is no evidential basis for certain opinions that people's sexual orientation can be changed. Mish (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MishMich - [1] the subject is reparative therapy; you are suggesting that to use the words of a reparative therapist to describe what they think reparative therapy is, involves giving undue weight. Think about it for a moment. Fair enough, if the article was different, say homosexuality or other LGBT focussed entries, you might have something, but the topic is reparative therapy.

[2]You suggest that the lead isn't full of LGBT views, when in fact it makes a statement that is consonant with LGBT views, and misses out the idea that feelings of same sex attraction may be unwanted, and according to some, be susceptible to therapy. I understand why you might want to say that, but this is the whole point of the article...

[3] All views are partisan if we conceive of views as products of their communities. Traditions of inquiry grow up around questions and problems, display explanatory power or not, grow and or die, extend themselves or contract. The question of same sex attraction is one that is answered in separate ways by different traditions; from a psychological/scientific standpoint by people like the APA, and from a psycho-spiritual standpoint by a number of different religious traditions. Their validity and rationality is dependant on the tradition in which they are found. The much younger tradition, which you are saying is neutral, stands in the context of a much older and still very extensive tradition, which disagrees with it. I don't believe you can call it neutral, though it may be valid and rational within its own context. The encyclopaedia project should gather this knowledge and present it well, not choose one version in the guise of neutrality.

[4]Reparative therapy in the sense of it being the latest version of a long and tortured history of religious attempts to deal with the problem (often very badly in my opinion, but lets let that pass for now) is the subject of much of the article. Nicolosi is the best example of current proponents, and stands for the tradition of enquiry that a good proportion of the article documents (although he would no agree with a great deal of the material). It is therefore due a certain amount of weight, as are any others who wish to comment. I would not object to other LGBT views being represented in the lead. Actually its partisan views masquerading as neutral that is much harder to deal with. Hyper3 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but conversion therapy falls under psychiatry/psychology, and this is about that, not religious views on homosexuality - that is a different article and well dealt with already. Mish (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy deals with a specific type of therapy, which goal is to change sexual orientation. NARTH deals with "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions", which includes, but is not limited to attempts to change sexual orientation. Therefore, not everything that NARTH does can be construed as conversion therapy. I think it would be completely appropriate to talk about therapies related to conversion therapy, but don't specifically try to change the sexual orientation. I also think it is important to realize that regardless of what NARTH might advocate, they still have to follow the same guidelines as everyone else. I don't understand why it is considered a fringe group, if they are following APA guidelines. True, simply having a member publish in the APA is not evidence that NARTH is not a fringe group, but what evidence do you have that NARTH is a fringe group? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3, you say "I'm fully aware that the reason that this edit is opposed is that those who oppose it are committed to a different view." Please see the policy on assuming good faith - WP:AGF, which you are failing to observe here. The reason why I oppose your edit is because it is original research. The sources you provided do not back up the statements you want to add to the lead. Even if NARTH were a reliable source and even if it were giving a definition of conversion or reparative therapy (and neither of those things is true) it would still reflect only NARTH's view, not those of all supporters of conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi JJ, Hyper needs to brief you properly when lobbying your support in backing him up here. The only aspect of NARTH that is relevant is its role in promoting a form of therapy that all professional psych associations have made extensive and clear statements regarding its inappropriateness. That is covered in the article. If it has now changed its tune, so it does some other kind of therapy, then that is not relevant to the lead, although it might be relevant to the main text, in passing, provided you have a reliable source to show that it has changed its approach (in a way that is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR. "providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" is not the same as "conversion therapy" - of it were, according to the APA, they would be risking challenges of professional misconduct, and they do not say that, do they? Mish (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I am both surprised and disappointed that there has been no proper discussion here since the article was protected. My proposal is that the article should be reverted back to the version of 08:10, 8 August 2009. The changes made by Destinero to the lead here [11] were not necessary or an improvement, and the revert by Whatever404 that followed undid much helpful editing, including not only the correction of a major factual error in the lead by Destinero but an important template fix by Guy M [12]. If nobody can be bothered discussing on the talk page, then I am simply going to assume that nobody objects to my proposal, and will go ahead and do the revert when protection expires. Born Gay (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like the most recent findings from the APA to be included on this page - including that psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity, that there is no evidence whether or not recent efforts to change sexual orientation are effective, there is no harm in rejecting a gay identity, therapists need to be aware of person's religious identity, and that the religious identity might be stronger than other identities, and that ex-gay groups are beneficial. I am more concerned with other articles right now, and I completely concur that the findings did not validate conversion therapy, but instead offered an alternative approach to dealing with ego-dystonic homosexuality. I am more interested in resolving the debate on the ego-dystonic sexual orientation page and the homosexuality and psychology page before trying to apply the changes here, since there are still many aspects of conversion therapy that I cannot defend. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The evidence shows that trying to change sexual orientation is ineffective. Nothing in the article is in error as it stands, because the APA confirmed everything in their 1997 statement in the 2009 statement. All that is needed is to see what they have said that supplements the 1997 statement, and insert it, and update citations as relevant. There is no urgency in that, and the proposed changes should be worked on here first, by developing a draft for insertion, which once agreed upon can then be inserted. Mish (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The new APA statement says "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." That is COMPLETELY different from saying that evidence shows it is ineffective. According to the APA report, evidence doesn't show one way or the other. It does say conversion therapy is ineffective, and I am fine saying conversion therapy is ineffective, but to extend that to other methods is inaccurate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement here does not seem to be over whether the new APA report is important or if its findings should be included; there seems to be agreement that it is and that they should be. Rather, it's about how the article should be updated. If Joshuajohanson feels that the report supports the various claims he made (eg, that "psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity", and so on), then it is up to him to justify those claims by citing the relevant parts of the report. Then he can propose a way of revising the article on the talk page, and it can be changed if there is a consensus. As Mish said, this process does not have to be rushed. It should be done in a careful way, with time for proper discussion of the proposed changes. The results of changing the article without discussion have been less than satisfactory; the additions made to the lead were unnecessary and those to the American medical consensus section only confused matters. Born Gay (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I do feel the report supports the claim that "psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity". I got that from "sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation, appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, or life events" on page 86 and from "Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi et al., 2000)." on page 120.

I am not sure if Joshuajohanson is saying that conversion therapy and SOCE are two different things or not. It certainly doesn't seem to me that the APA distinguishes them, and the suggestion that they are different looks like original research. Born Gay (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The APA defines conversion therapy to be psychotherapy which is based off the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder, whereas SOCE involves any effort to change sexual orientation, including, but not limited to conversion therapy, and regardless of the reasoning behind it. SOCE can include ex-gay groups, religious organizations and other non-professional methods. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The APA says that there are no studies that show whether recent SOCE work or not - because of the poor quality of research - fine, but that has to be understood on the back of all the good quality research that demonstrated that changing sexual orientation did not work. In other words, there is no evidence to show that it works (this was established prior to 1997, and that has not been superceded), and there is no evidence that anything that has developed since works or not. That means there is still no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, and the only evidence there is is that it cannot be changed. Mish (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think that should be explained here. Maybe this summary would work - "Older methods were ineffective at changing sexual orientation and there is not enough evidence to conclude whether or not current methods change sexual orientation. However, sexual orientation identity can be changed through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." I think what is most important are the current methods. It's not like anyone is going to go back to the 1990's to try to get that brand of conversion therapy. A lot has happened since then, and the newer stuff needs to be reflected here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still considering this issue and will have more to say later. For now, I'll simply note that Joshuajohanson is wrong about the report identifying conversion therapy as one type of SOCE. The main body of the report does not use the term "conversion therapy" (it's present only in the references) or say anything specific about how conversion therapy does or does not differ from SOCE. This might seem to be a pedantic point, but we have to keep it in mind if we want to avoid any original research analysis of this source. Born Gay (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see if anyone has a reason why we can't include this information. You are right, the report doesn't use the term conversion therapy, so you can't say that SOCE and conversion therapy is the same thing either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is rather an old discussion, and I'm not sure which information you're talking about. If you're referring to the additions you wanted to make to the lead, I still consider them undue and unsuitable, per WP:LEAD. They don't belong in a short summary, because they aren't one of the article's main points. There have been many reports on and statements about attempted methods of changing homosexuality, and the new APA statement is only one of them. Born Gay (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat it:

"I would like the most recent findings from the APA to be included on this page - including that psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity, that there is no evidence whether or not recent efforts to change sexual orientation are effective, there is no harm in rejecting a gay identity, therapists need to be aware of person's religious identity, and that the religious identity might be stronger than other identities, and that ex-gay groups are beneficial."

You said "I am still considering this issue and will have more to say later." You ask that I bring up things on the talk page before adding them, but then you do nothing. Saying you are "still considering this issue" makes it sound as if you own this article. I think it should include the new information from the most recent APA report. I added it, you removed it, asking me to discuss it first. I discussed it, you are still considering it. Until it is added back in, this article is POV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the most recent findings from the APA should be included. The issue is how best to do that. This is an extremely recent document, the implications of which I am still considering (and I do have things to do with my time besides edit, you know). I am not implying that I own the article, and your accusation that I am shows a failure to show good faith; see WP:AGF. I don't believe that anything in this report needs to be added to the lead, where it is would be undue, especially as this is an article about conversion therapy, not SOCE. Born Gay (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cutting back history

I have removed large parts of the history section (most of which I added in the first place), in most cases because there are no sources stating that the material in them relates to conversion therapy, which makes it original research, and in some cases because the material is relevant but undue. I have shifted some of that material to a more appropriate article, and added a link to it here. I have proposed changes similar to this on the talk page and on my project page, and no one has objected, so I have now finally made some of my proposed changes, which have been overdue for months. The current arrangement of the sections is provisional and will require further changes, and no doubt more material will have to be carefully cut back. Born Gay (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

American medical consensus

Joshuajohanson, without waiting for a proper discussion on the talk page, has made a series of destructive and unhelpful changes to this crucial section of the article. I have accordingly reverted them. I'm sorry, but changes like this, which can easily look like POV pushing to make the article portray conversion therapy in a positive way, even if that is not how you intend them, need to be more extensively discussed than they have been so far here. One other editor expressing agreement with you, without explaining his or her grounds for the agreement in any way, is not good enough. There are many other editors who are interested in this article, and you should wait to give them the opportunity to express their views on this. If necessary, place a request for comment, so that a proper consensus can be developed here, not just a temporary agreement of two editors. I repeat my suggestion to Knulclunk to explain why he or she agrees with Joshuajohanson. Born Gay (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So that we can be absolutely clear what is under discussion here, the version of that section edited by Joshuajohanson looks like this:

American medical consensus

The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness or whether recent methods "do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." Older methods have been found to be ineffective at changing sexual orientation. Mainstream medical bodies state that conversion therapy can be harmful because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide. There is not sufficient evidence to determine the benefit or harm of such therapies, and there is extensive debate on the matter. The reports of harm and cure counterbalance each other. One report indicates that participants are at increased risk for guilt, depression, anxiety, confusion, self-blame, suicidal gestures, unprotected anal intercourse with untested partners, and heavy substance abuse. Another report indicated that most of the participants found that the therapy was helpful to them, psychologically, spiritually, and sexually. There is a broad concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy itself causes social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of gay and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives.

Further help

Whereas initially, my edit was considered fringe, original research, and not backed up by sources, conversations since then have failed to establish that this is the case. I think an unbiased outsider would understand the clear case that conversion/reparative therapy is not being described in a way that sensitively portrays the approach that the many caring and patient-centred therapists who employ this therapy could recognise. I believe that this may be because of the a priori standpoints of other editors in this matter, and we should ask for outside help. The new objections that are emerging, centred around whether the article really is about what it says it is, I am not finding convincing either. I think we should get other opinions involved. They may be able to help .Hyper3 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of bias is not a helpful way forward. What we personally think about this subject is not, or should not, be the issue. Personally, I'm against it. However, I also consider myself to be a reasonably neutral editor, and I try to base things on reliable sources and not on my personal views. Sometimes that takes an effort, and I find it becomes easier as time passes. I can understand your frustration that other editors may not agree with you, but please be willing to consider that they are disagreeing in good faith, based on concerns for WP:NPOV, and not out of some desire to push personal views. Born Gay (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that people are capable of being non-neutral, yet showing good faith. We are shaped by our commitments, and genuinely believe them to be right. I'm not trying to call people biased, just exploring the possibility that they may be wrong. Hyper3 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments about how "an unbiased outsider would understand" this or that look very much like accusations of bias even if they are not intended that way. Let's be careful to continue assuming good faith, unless and until that can no longer be maintained. Born Gay (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)