Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Conversion therapy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Mediation

It doesn't seem we have made any progress in the last week. I think we need to go through mediation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you propose the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal? BG 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go through whatever process that you are willing to go through. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be desirable to ask KillerChihuahua for further advice; or Seddon, since that was the user NuclearWarfare suggested. BG 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV flag

This article is not NPOV. Here are some problems with the article:

The WHO lists egodystonic sexual orientation under Psychological and behavioural disorders and does say that patients "may seek treatment in order to change it." This is mentioned in the article, but it is not mentioned in the lead and the main article gives too much weight to the American standpoint. India follows the WHO listing and practices conversion therapy. There is no reason to give America more weight than India.
The American Psychiatric Association has stated: "anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm".[1] However, this article does not counterbalance the cures with the harm. This needs to be addressed.
There are other benefits of conversion therapy. Here are some good studies to include: [2] [3]
Almost every single statement has talked about the importance of self-determination. This needs to be addressed in the article.
The American Psychological Association has stated "Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media."[4] This debate is ignored and it seems as if there is a consensus in the professional literature. There used to be a good discussion of the debate, but this was removed. [5] All of it was published by reliable sources.
The APA stated "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events" I would like the article to mention this.

All of these things needed to be added. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the article does have POV problems, but in my view you haven't correctly identified any of them. The main POV problem here is the inclusion of undue material in the history section, something which I admit that I am partly responsible for, but which I intend to remedy by removing it. It's entirely appropriate that the WHO statement not be mentioned in the lead, as it is not one of the article's main points. The article does not give too much emphasis to the American viewpoint, since sources that deal with conversion therapy happen to focus mainly on the United States. Suggesting that the article should give India as much weight as America is silly. The exclusion of the quotations you mention from the American medical consensus section is not a problem either, since the purpose of it is to summarise the main views, not to offer quotations. Born Gay (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the article in any of the ways you suggest, then please propose changes on the talk page first and see if consensus for them can be reached. Proposed changes should be dealt with one by one, and each will be considered on its own merits, or lack of them. Adding a "neutrality disputed" flag to the article isn't a particularly helpful thing to do - views on this issue tend to be sharply polarized, and I suppose that no matter what the article says someone will always say that it isn't neutral. Adding the tag is not a responsible thing to do unless you can explain exactly what changes would satisfy you that the article was neutral, and I do not think it should stay just because one editor wants it. Born Gay (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And since you make an issue of my removal of the debate within professional literature section, I will say that I stand by that and still consider removing it the correct decision. I have changed my mind about other issues, but not about this. The version of that section from the article version you linked to is mainly just a confusing mess of quotations, but I did not wipe all of that content, but preserved the parts that were most relevant and relocated them elsewhere in the article. Born Gay (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add things into this article to make it more neutral, but it gets reverted with the only explanation of being "let's discuss it", but then no actual discussion takes place. This article is FAR from NPOV. Hopefully with the NPOV tag in place, it will give motivation for editors to work together. The flag means neutrality is disputed, not that there is consensus that the article is not neutral. You ask me to "explain exactly what changes would satisfy you that the article was neutral." I have made a list. There are many things wrong with this article, so simply fulfilling that list won't be enough, but it is a start.

One of the problems is that you don't like quotes and Destino doesn't like my summaries. Somehow that just ends meaning anything that either of you two don't like gets removed. I can't work with that. I am sick of it. I gave up on this article awhile back because of that problem. All you have to do to remove content you don't like is find one problem with it, whether it be you don't like the summary, it has too many quotes, it doesn't have enough quotes, or anything you want. Fine, edit it, don't remove it. I hope that the NPOV tag will encourage us to work together rather than separately. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to your additions to the lead, I removed them because I considered them unnecessary and unhelpful. I still do. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the main points of the article, and there is no way that the material you added could be considered that. It might well belong somewhere else, but not in the lead. The article does indeed have POV problems, but as I said, you don't seem to understand what they are, and nor have you shown any interest in discussing them. The NPOV tag is divisive and does absolutely nothing to improve the article. If you think that it is reasonable to add a neutrality disputed tag simply because one editor thinks the article is not neutral, then the result will be that this article will always have a neutrality disputed tag, because there is always going to be some editor who thinks it is not neutral, no matter what it says. I can't say what your intentions are, but to an external observer it almost might look as though you want to add the tag simply because you haven't got your way here and therefore want to spoil things by adding something that implies that the article is no good. Born Gay (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To repeat some points: it is completely unreasonable to add the tag if you cannot or will not explain under what circumstances you would agree to have it removed. If it has any place at all, that could be only because there are specific problems that could be fixed by some defined, agreed-upon method, not because one editor has vague and incompletely explained concerns about an article that no one knows how to satisfy. I remain strongly opposed to the use of quotations where summaries are more appropriate, and note that you have done little to discuss what appropriate summaries would consist of. Born Gay (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is only an essay, I would direct your attention to WP:NPOVD, which states, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Born Gay (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I listed 6 things at the top of this section. I will take the flag off when they are addressed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? That you will insist the tag remain unless your proposed changes (and in some cases you're rather vague about just what you think needs doing) are made? Suppose other editors form a consensus that your proposed changes are not appropriate or necessary - what then? Will you still insist that the tag remain even in the face of such a consensus? Would you consider it reasonable if other editors also behaved that way? Obviously, the article would have a "neutrality disputed" tag forever if other people behaved as you're proposing to do. Born Gay (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson has correctly pointed out POV problems with the article and made several sourced suggestions on how it can be improved. Perhaps you can recommend were in the article his suggestions can be added? Or, even better, add them yourself since you seem concerned about his agenda?--Knulclunk (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I would not insist that the tag remain once a consensus is reached. I want the concerns to be addressed, not necessarily in my favor, but addressed. You have mentioned that you "stand by" the reason not include the information about the debate, but didn't give a reason for that. (You could point me to the discussion.) I concede that the WHO position might not deserve as much weight as the APA, but seeing how most of the world uses the WHO, I think it is reasonable to want something from them in the lead. I would also like something about self-determination in the lead. If you have no other objections, I will start adding the stuff on my list into the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To repy to Knulclunk: Joshuajohanson is simply wrong in many of his claims. It is not a "POV problem" that the lead does not mention that "WHO lists egodystonic sexual orientation under Psychological and behavioural disorders and does say that patients 'may seek treatment in order to change it.'" This information is not one of the main points of the article, and it would be undue for the lead. It is also not a POV problem that America is given more weight than India here, that too is as it should be, as sources dealing with conversion therapy tend to focus on America, not India. Joshuajohanson's comment that "this article does not counterbalance the cures with the harm" appears to suggest that he wants the article to state that some people have been cured of homosexuality through conversion therapy, but stating that would create a POV problem, not solve one. The removal of the debate within professional literature section was appropriate, despite what Joshuajohanson suggests, since that section had no material in it that could not be more usefully placed in different sections, mainly the American medical consensus and Studies of converison therapy sections. Some of that material might perhaps be restored, but not the whole section. Joshuajohanson's remark that, "The APA stated 'sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events', I would like the article to mention this" suggests to me that he has misinterpreted the new APA report, which in my view does not say that conversion therapy can necessarily change sexual orientation identity. The issue should no doubt be mentioned, but we need to avoid misinterpreting what the APA actually says. However, if you think that Joshuajohanson is right on any of these points, then please explain why you think he is right. Simply asserting that he is right is not of any help by itself. Born Gay (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Joshuajohanson: you say, "If you have no other objections, I will start adding the stuff on my list into the article." I object strongly to you "adding the stuff on my list into the article." I do not see that I have to give you a new set of objections, since I feel the old ones were sufficient, but regarding the debate section, I will say that I find that older versions of that section give readers little sense of what "debate" may actually exist. Mainly it was just a collection of quotations, few of which appeared to be chosen on any clear basis. There was almost no information about "debate" (in the sense of how different writers have responded to each other) there, so in addition to its contents being poorly chosen, the section itself was poorly named. In future, if you are going to make proposals to change the article, please make them clear and specific, not general and vague. Born Gay (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we will have the NPOV tag for awhile. You insist on misrepresenting the medical view. It might be hard to reach NPOV on this article, but while you refuse to accurately represent the medical view it will remain NPOV. Your argument that "this article does not counterbalance the cures with the harm" appears to suggest that he wants the article to state that some people have been cured of homosexuality through conversion therapy, but stating that would create a POV problem" is ridiculous. If the statements by the medical organizations are POV, then you need to readjust what it means to be POV. You can't just say that statements by medical organizations are "unhelpful". Truth is truth, and unless it is accurately represented, it is NPOV.Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please sign your comments? It's hard to work out who I'm replying to otherwise. I am not trying to "misrepresent the medical view". I recognize that the section may need various kinds of changes to ensure accuracy, but that needs to be done very carefully and cautiously. There should be extensive discussion before major changes are made. What you have tried to do with that section, however, effectively reduces it to nonsense. It was (I suppose) not your intention to do that, but that was the result. Your claim that my comment about your views is ridiculous is itself ridiculous, if you're implying that mainstream medical organizations think that homosexuality can be "cured." Born Gay (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The medical view emphasizes self-determination. You delete any reference to self-determination. Hence you are misrepresenting the medical view. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The new APA report was largely dismissive of that argument. I've removed the references to self-determination from the American medical consensus section partly because they're a direct quotation, and it's awkward to stuff such a quotation, chosen on a questionable basis, in the middle of other statements, all of which are summary. Born Gay (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The medical view does emphasize self-determination. The American Psychological Association has stated "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination". [6] The American Counseling Association has stated "In summary, if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy."[7] The new APA report is all about a client being able to live their own life. What part of self-determination are they largely dismissive of? They say the client can pursue whatever lifestyle they want, and that a therapist should allow the client to develop a heterosexual identity if they so chose. They shouldn't claim to be able to change sexual orientation, but the client can do whatever they want. The medical view does not try to force any type of lifestyle on anyone. This article as currently written makes it seem as if the medical organizations are trying to force a gay lifestyle on individuals, when in reality they are perfectly content with clients living a straight lifestyle. That is a misrepresentation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations showing that self-determination is mentioned don't show that it's the main part of the medical view; many more critical or negative comments about conversion therapy could be offered. Mentioning self-determination outside the context of criticism gives the wrong impression. Regarding the new report, see chapter 7, especially the part stating "We believe that simply providing SOCE to clients who request it does not necessarily increase self determination but rather abdicates the responsibility of LMHP to provide competent assessment and interventions that have the potential for benefit with a limited risk of harm." Born Gay (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said we had to mention self-determination outside of the context of the criticism. I am fine having it with the context of criticism. The sentence you quote does not say that self-determination is bad or unimportant, but instead talks about ways that do not increase self-determination. Increasing self-determination is still important. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your position is that the mainstream organizations mention self-determination but don't really emphasise it. The quote from the APA ("In summary, if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy") doesn't sound to me like emphasizing self-determination; it looks more like de-emphasizing it. This kind of secondary aspect of the mainstream view shouldn't be in the lead. Born Gay (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is because self-determination is emphasized elsewhere, in context of other therapies, since simply providing SOCE doesn't increase self-determination. Self-determination can be increased through other therapies. Other therapies and approaches are emphasized in these reports, if we are going strictly by what is emphasized in these reports. It is emphasized much more that "the advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation." I don't think that belongs in the lead, since it is mostly about the advancement of conversion therapy and its affects on society at large, rather than with the people who are requesting conversion therapy. You still haven't convinced me that self-determination doesn't belong in the lead, but for now, how about we talk about self-determination in the consensus rather than the lead, and we talk about other therapies in the lead? Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying they "emphasize" it suggests that they consider this more important than other points, like the fact that it's unproven and potentially harmful. The sentence about the advancement of conversion therapy causing "social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation" does belong in the lead, since this is an article about conversion therapy generally, not about the people who request it. The medical consensus section has many complicated problems, and discussion here, which increasingly seems circular, has not addressed any of them properly. Born Gay (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but for now, can I put it in the guidelines section instead of the lead? Do you have any objections to me putting in material about self-determination and related therapies that respect self-determination better than conversion therapy in the ethical guidelines section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't say, because I don't know precisely what you intend to add; your explanation of that is unclear. I'm not sure why material about "related therapies that respect self-determination better than conversion therapy" should be here, because this an article about conversion therapy, after all. It sounds a little like you plan to add something that's off-topic. Born Gay (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindented)I plan to write something under the APA section along the lines of "A 2009 report reaffirmed earlier rulings. They recommended other therapies that do not claim to change sexual orientation, but assists the patient to understand the reasons for wanting to change, and guides them in the formation of a new identity that would be acceptable to them, including the rejection of gay identity." The section is on the guidelines, and the guidelines outlines what is appropriate and what is not. This is the appropriate alternative to conversion therapy, as outlined in the guidelines. To censure this information would be misleading, as it would imply that all efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions were condemned by the mainstream medical association. I would like a discussion of what to add. If you have a problem with my summary, I would like to know what exactly is your problem so that we can come together to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, misleading the reader to think that self-determination is not an issue and there is no acceptable alternative to conversion therapy is not acceptable. If we cannot come to a mutually agreeable solution, I will put up a misleading flag, as I feel that current article is misleading. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If the new report simply reaffirmed earlier rulings, and did not change the ethical guidelines, I am not sure why anything should be added. The entire article already has a POV warning on it. Adding yet more flags and tags is without justification and would look like a violation of WP:POINT. Born Gay (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The new report reaffirmed earlier rulings AND made further statements, including a recommendation for alternative therapies. It is the recommendation for alternative therapies that I think is important to discuss. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/resolution-resp.html: Resolution: WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association expressly opposes prejudice (defined broadly) and discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status (American Psychological Association, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008b); WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association takes a leadership role in opposing prejudice and discrimination (APA, 2008b, 2008c), including prejudice based on or derived from religion or spirituality, and encourages commensurate consideration of religion and spirituality as diversity variables (APA, 2008b); WHEREAS, Psychologists respect human diversity including age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status (APA, 2002) and psychologists strive to prevent bias from their own spiritual, religious, or non-religious beliefs from taking precedence over professional practice and standards or scientific findings in their work as psychologists (APA, 2008b); WHEREAS, Psychologists are encouraged to recognize that it is outside the role and expertise of psychologists, as psychologists, to adjudicate religious or spiritual tenets, while also recognizing that psychologists can appropriately speak to the psychological implications of religious/spiritual beliefs or practices when relevant psychological findings about those implications exist (APA, 2008b); WHEREAS, Those operating from religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, while also recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science (APA, 2008b); WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association encourages collaborative activities in pursuit of shared prosocial goals between psychologists and religious communities when such collaboration can be done in a mutually respectful manner that is consistent with psychologists’ professional and scientific roles (APA, 2008b); WHEREAS, Societal ignorance and prejudice about a same-sex sexual orientation places some sexual minorities 2 at risk for seeking sexual orientation change due to personal, family, or religious conflicts, or lack of information (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Haldeman, 1994; Ponticelli, 1999; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002; Wolkomir, 2001); WHEREAS, Some mental health professionals advocate treatments based on the premise that homosexuality is a mental disorder (e.g., Nicolosi, 1991; Socarides, 1968); WHEREAS, Sexual minority children and youth are especially vulnerable populations with unique developmental tasks (Perrin, 2002; Ryan & Futterman, 1997), who lack adequate legal protection from involuntary or coercive treatment (Arriola, 1998; Burack & Josephson, 2005; Molnar, 1997) and whose parents and guardians need accurate information to make informed decisions regarding their development and well-being (Cianciotto & Cahill, 2006; Ryan & Futterman, 1997); and WHEREAS, Research has shown that family rejection is a predictor of negative outcomes (Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009; Savin-Williams, 1994; Wilber, Ryan, & Marksamer, 2006) and that parental acceptance and school support are protective factors (D’Augelli, 2003; D’Augelli, Hershberger & Pilkington, 1998; Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Savin-Williams, 1989) for sexual minority youth; BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the emerging knowledge on affirmative multiculturally competent treatment provides a foundation for an appropriate evidence-based practice with children, adolescents and adults who are distressed by or seek to change their sexual orientation (Bartoli & Gillem, 2008; Brown, 2006; Martell, Safren & Prince, 2004; Ryan & Futterman, 1997; Norcross, 2002); BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages practitioners to consider the ethical concerns outlined in the 1997 APA Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Response to Sexual Orientation (American Psychological Association, 1998), in particular the following standards and principles: scientific bases for professional judgments, benefit and harm, justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages practitioners to be aware that age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, disability, language, and socioeconomic status may interact with sexual stigma, and contribute to variations in sexual orientation identity development, expression, and experience; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association opposes the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations seeking to influence public policy and public opinion and will take a leadership role in responding to such distortions; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association supports the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias that is based in lack of knowledge about sexual orientation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages advocacy groups, elected officials, mental health professionals, policy makers, religious professionals and organizations, and other organizations to seek areas of collaboration that may promote the wellbeing of sexual minorities. --Destinero (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What is Consensus?

Since there has been much discussion here about the need to make edits based upon consensus, it may be helpful to remind ourselves what policy states about how consensus is determined.

WP:CONSENSUS states that, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." So, consensus is not only about counting heads, but also about determining what policy requires. This is important, because some of the arguments being made here do not refer to policy and evade the requirement to justify one's positions with policy. Joshuajohanson's comments above in the Bioenergetics thread are an example of this evasion of the obligation to explain how policy supports one's position.

I explained that the Bioenergetics section depends upon a synthesis of sources and thus violates WP:NOR, but Joshuajohanson's response was simply to say that it was "good content"; he made no attempt to refute my argument that it was synthesis. When I pointed this out to him, his response was to say that there was "no consensus" to remove it. Since determining consensus has to take into account the quality of arguments, and Joshuajohanson's arguments have been of very poor quality, his position that there is no consensus for removal needs to be questioned. I would point out to him that in the end, there is no way that content can be justified without a reason based on policy to keep it here, and that complaining that there is no consensus for removal is of no use if one has a mistaken understanding of how consensus is determined. BG 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Article protection expires in about a day, so I'm going to discuss some changes I want to make.

In addition to removing the Bioenergetics section, these include adding the sections on group therapy and psychoanalysis in my sandbox to Theories and Techniques, tweaking the lead by removing "fantasy modification" from the list of methods (since Haldeman considers fantasy modification to be one specific technique of behavioral methods, and does not discuss it as a separate method), and removing the NARTH quote from the lead, since it is not supported by consensus and no explanation of why it should be considered necessary has been given.

I think some consideration should be given to removing the quotation from the start of the Studies of conversion therapy section. I've challenged the relevance of the new report to the ex-gay section of this article, so by the same logic, it's necessary to challenge its relevance to the studies section too. If it can't be used to source statements about conversion therapy that might look positive, it can't be used to source critical statements either; per NPOV, we can't have any double standards. BG 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a summary describing the changes you wish to make, in future (starting now) could you provide links to what you are talking about. Links to what you intend to remove or change, links to the proposed insertion or amendment. This will make it easier for other editors to see what you are talking about. Thanks. Mish (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're requesting. The Bioenergetics section and the other things in the article are easy to find and don't really need links. My sandbox is here [8]. Some of the other sections, including the behavioral modification and sex therapy sections, could do with being expanded. BG 08:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make any changes until you have reached a consensus. The proposed addition of group psychology is unbalanced because it relies on one source that considers it to be conversion therapy and ignores other relevant changes. The proposed change brings the focus on how conversion therapy affects the gay population at large, but ignores the right of self-determination of those who it would directly affect. The quote should not be removed because there is no consensus to remove information from the APA. BG has decided to remove information from the APA from the ex-gay section, but has not achieved the consensus of the group at large. I still think the APA should be included in order to give a balanced view to the ex-gay section. The quote should not be removed from the Studies section. Fantasy modifications should also not be removed. You rely too heavily on a misinterpreted view of Haldeman's report. Please do not make any changes until you have reached a consensus. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I want to keep the description of what reparative therapists think they are doing in the lead; a quotation from an APA leader using a NARTH source. Mish moved it to where it is, and BG is the only one that consistently wants to remove it. So that means there is no consensus to remove it either, but there might be some support to keep it. Continually saying that there is no explanation for it being there, when I continue to explain its presence is inaccurate. If someone wants to propose a more accurate version, I would be happy to comment. Hyper3 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. I propose we take out the information about how this affects the gay population at large out of the lead, since this isn't directly about conversion therapy, but only related information. Either that or we include other related information, such as alternative treatments. The NARTH standpoint, self determination and WHO is directly about conversion therapy and should be in the lead. The ex-gay section depends to heavily on one point of view, one that believes it is a type of conversion therapy. The mainstream point of view does not classify it as conversion therapy. The relationships between ex-gay groups and conversion therapy must be presented equally, with the mainstream view given dominance over all other views. Until there is another page available, related therapies should be discussed here, but it should be made clear that they are related therapies. I also think the ethical guidelines section should include the new APA report. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide your source for the WHO's discussion of CT. I have been unable to find one. And the text you intend to insert about the WHO's position on CT. Mish (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson: you request me not to make changes until there is a consensus. I hope this means that you, also, will not make changes until there is a consensus, something that you have done numerous times in the past (one other editor agreeing with you does not a consensus make, especially not where controversial issues are concerned). You write, "The proposed addition of group psychology is unbalanced because it relies on one source that considers it to be conversion therapy and ignores other relevant changes." The first part of that is absurd - obviously group therapy is only relevant to this article to the extent that sources define it as conversion therapy. Haldeman does, so he is the right source. You have provided no argument against my position on this. I can't make any sense of what you mean by saying that the addition "ignores other relevant changes" - what are you talking about? BG 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You also write, "The proposed change brings the focus on how conversion therapy affects the gay population at large, but ignores the right of self-determination of those who it would directly affect." How is that relevant? Again, I can't even make out what you're trying to say; could you explain yourself more carefully, please? If you're trying to argue that all sections of "Theories and techniques" must mention the right to self-determination you keep talking about, I happen to disagree. You write that, "The quote should not be removed because there is no consensus to remove information from the APA." I think the quote should be removed mainly because it isn't necessary. A section on studies of conversion therapy should describe studies of conversion therapy, and nothing more. If the new APA report is deemed relevant to the article at all, then that material might go somewhere else. BG 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some other points. You say, "Fantasy modifications should also not be removed." Yes it should. I explained my reasons for this. Haldeman does not discuss "fantasy modifications" as a separate method but as one kind of behavioral modification. Could you please respond to the reason I gave, rather than simply disagree with me? You also say, "You rely too heavily on a misinterpreted view of Haldeman's report." No. There's no misinterpretation in anything that I based on Haldeman. If you think there is misinterpretation, it's up to you to show that. BG 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Joshuajohanson again. You say, "The ex-gay section depends to heavily on one point of view, one that believes it is a type of conversion therapy. The mainstream point of view does not classify it as conversion therapy. The relationships between ex-gay groups and conversion therapy must be presented equally, with the mainstream view given dominance over all other views. Until there is another page available, related therapies should be discussed here, but it should be made clear that they are related therapies." WP:NOR indicates that sources must not be used contrary to their intention, and must be directly related to the subject of an article. If a source does not indicate that ex-gay groups are a form of conversion therapy, then using it to source a description of them as a form of conversion therapy (which is the only respect in which the article is concerned with them) is using it contrary to its intention. Using a source that isn't explicitly about conversion therapy to source claims about conversion therapy probably violates the rule that sources must be directly related to the subject of the article. Furthermore, you are wrong in saying that the "mainstream" point of view does not classify ex-gay groups as conversion therapy. There is no one mainstream point of view on this issue. That being the case, your proposal to give what you consider the "mainstream view" dominance over views would introduce a POV slant into the article. That's unacceptable. BG 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't specifically say that having sex with you client is a form of conversion therapy, but it is related to conversion therapy. The APA doesn't exactly call ex-gay therapies a type of conversion therapy, but it is related in that ex-gay therapies have been brought up. I also have serious doubts how you are using Gonsiorek. It is a second hand reference from 1991 that we can't see the full text. I have read Haldeman's stuff and I don't think your summary of Gonsiorek's interpretation of Haldeman's work is accurate. I find it highly irrational that somehow you have been able to convince yourself that 2nd hand material from 18 years ago should have more weight than APA stuff. I highly doubt Haldeman listed sex as a form of conversion therapy. Maybe we could take this to mediation. All parties must agree to mediation. Would you agree to mediation? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You admit that you "can't see the full text" of Haldeman - in that case, you're in no position to complain that I am misinterpreting him. Do some research and actually look up the source if you want to make such a complaint. Haldeman explains that ex-gay ministries are unprofessional and unethical, and it gives sexual abuse and exploitaton as one specific example of such lack of professionalism and ethics. So it is relevant, and the information about this should be expanded, to give the details of the abuse that occured. It doesn't matter that the source is from 1991, unless there are other reliable sources that deal with ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy that take a different view, something you have provided no evidence of. I don't even know what you're trying to say by saying that it's "second hand." BG 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I see the problem here. You don't know what you're talking about. The source I'm using is Haldeman's essay from Gonsiorek's 1991 book. It has nothing to do with "Gonsiorek's interpretation of Haldeman's work" (is that why you think it's "second-hand"?) - it actually presents Haldeman's view directly, as you'd know if you had "read Haldeman's stuff." Like I say, you need to look up the sources and see what they actually say. BG 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did misinterpret. I didn't realize it was a book. I've read his more recent stuff, like this. So this book from 18 years ago from which you have decided to base this article regardless of all the opposition, does it specifically mention that counselors have sex with clients was a form of conversion therapy, or do you just think anything in an article that relates ex-gay groups to conversion therapy is up for grabs? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It was probably Gonsiorek's book that introduced the term "conversion therapy" into the literature in the first place. As such, it's the ideal source to start with. I'm not trying to base the entire article on that one source, but it is the first source I'm using for the descriptions of the various methods of conversion therapy. By all means, mention other sources too, if there's anything appropriate. Haldeman is clear that sexual exploitation is one of the risks involved in ex-gay treatment - that's why the information should be there. In my view, that information should be expanded, to include the details of the abuse - the nude massage and mutual masturbation, in the case of the former head of Quest Ministries. Wikipedia is not censored. BG 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Haldeman does seem to indicate that sex was practiced as a kind of conversion therapy - see pages 156 and 157 of Gonsiorek. The information should be there in any case, as such abuse is a risk of conversion therapy whether it's a specific form of conversion therapy or not. We have to document the risks. BG 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Haldeman's early work is the most frequently cited on CT, so despite its longevity it deserves as much (if not more) attention than any other. There is no getting away from that. Mish (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The argument that Haldeman's original criticism of conversion therapy is out of date because it was done 18 years ago is the reverse of the truth - rather, Haldeman's work has made conversion therapy out of date, and its validity stands. If more criticisms of these methods of conversion therapy have not been made, that will be because Haldeman did it convincingly 18 years ago and later writers saw no reason to go over the same ground again. Joshuajohanson's objections to adding this content have been incoherent and irrelevant; I'm simply going to ignore him and add it to the article if he can't come up with something better soon. BG 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NARTH Quotation

Hyper3 is continuing to support the inclusion of a pointless and stupidly-chosen quotation from NARTH's website in the lead, on the basis that it describes what "reparative therapists think they are doing." In fact, the article the quotation comes from does not even mention reparative therapists or reparative therapy, specifically, so the rationale for its inclusion is worthless.

The context of the quotation is this:

"In response to a follow-up question by Dr. Nicolosi about the lack of clarity in APA's statements and positions, Dr. Koocher clearly emphasized that providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions was well within APA's Code of Ethics, and he invited Dr. Nicolosi to submit his recommendations for further clarifications to APA."

So the quotation actually represents Koocher's position, not NARTH's, or those of reparative therapists in general. There's no indication that Koocher is a reparative therapist. The quotation therefore must be removed, since, it an addition to being pointless (since the lead already explains that NARTH advocates "secular forms of conversion therapy", which Hyper3 doesn't seem to realize is the same thing as supporting "psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions"), it distorts and misrepresents its source. BG 22:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Hyper3's claim that the quotation shouldn't be removed without consensus: you added it without consensus. BG 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You added the ex-gay stuff without consensus, but that doesn't seem to bother you one bit. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the subject of this thread and avoid personal attacks. BG 23:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think as NARTH is a major player in conversion therapy, their views should be accurately displayed, which this article does not do. If we are going to apply the "consensus" argument, I think it should be applied equally throughout this article. I don't think you can remove Hyper's stuff because he doesn't comply to the consensus and then keep your stuff in even though three editors have expressed concern over it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about the lead, not the article in general. I would not be oppposed to the inclusion of a quotation from NARTH's website if it served any purpose - the truth is that it doesn't. Could you please respond to the arguments I gave above? BG 00:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What expertise do you claim in labelling the "stupid and pointless?" I think the phrase is both apt and helpful, to express what some reparist therapists think they are doing. Koocher is a past president of the APA, and his use of the phrase (that reparative therapists use) shows it is a phrase used in the debate to represent that position. Perhaps you think Koocher is stupid and pointless in his choice of words, and not me. Assuming good faith, I must choose to believe that this is so. Hyper3 (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What expertise do I claim? None. I'm simply using my own intelligence and good judgment, as any editor is supposed to do. What expertise do you claim, Hyper3? I'm glad you realize that Koocher is a past president of the APA, not a reparative therapist. Your statment that his phrase is one "that reparative therapists use" is wrong. One organization quoting Koocher on one occasion does not make it phrase that "therapists" (in the plural) use. One single mention of that phrase by one organization on one occasion does not show that "it is a phrase used in the debate to represent that position." If it did, then I suppose the same could be said of dozens of other things that have been said over the years, which would have as much or as little right to be here as that particular comment. Hence, as I said, the quotation is stupid and pointless - because it seems to have been chosen on a completely arbitrary basis. BG 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I note your absolute failure to respond to my point that quoting a comment by Koocher to represent NARTH's view effectively misrepresents it as NARTH's official position or self-description, when it is no such thing. Or was what you said meant to be a response? If it was, it was a poor response indeed. BG 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Go on then BG. If it makes you happy, remove the quotation. I surrender. Hyper3 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Hyper3 has made another attempt to wipe criticism of ex-gay treatment from this article, this time using the edit summary, "should not be an attack page (section) constructed by synthesising opposition without proper reference to practitioners." This appears to be a claim that the contents of the section violate WP:SYNTH. They do not. Synthesis is what something is called when it uses a combination of different sources to try to prove something that no one of the sources proves taken by itself. That isn't the case here; everything in that section is sourced to one source (Haldeman), and it represents that source properly and without distortion. I suggest Hyper3 review the policy, rather than continue to make edits that it does not remotely justify. As for the non-representation of practitioners of ex-gay treatment: if they do not regard what they do as conversion therapy, and if they have not published in reliable sources, then it is perfectly appropriate to exclude what they say about themselves from that section. Describing ex-gay practice only from its opponents is the right thing to do if they happen to have produced the only reliable sources, which is probably the case. BG 09:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Just to clarify - the section does use several sources, but all of the criticism in it is from one source, so that part obviously doesn't involve synthesis.) BG 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It was a grumpy thing to do. Decided to revert back, but Mish got there first. Hyper3 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It can be frustrating, I appreciate that. Mish (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the criticism in that section isn't a form of synthesis, I think the opening sentence, which explains that some sources regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy and some don't, probably is. I'm going to work on a different way of explaining this that tries to avoid the problem. BG 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward with the article

The two parts of the article I want to focus on improving at the moment are the lead and the theories and techniques section. The lead needs some fine-tuning. I would suggest, "Conversion therapy has been criticized by many gay and lesbian rights organizations and the medical community, but is supported by some conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and the ex-gay movement" as an alternative to, "Conversion therapy has been criticized by many gay and lesbian rights organizations, and all relevant professional associations. It is mainly supported by conservative Christian political and social lobbying groups and by the ex-gay movement." I'm starting to wonder whether this material is necessary for the article in any form, since it seems somewhat repetitive; there's another statement in a later paragraph about criticism of conversion therapy from mainstream organizations, and my view would be that this needs be stated only once. The part about conservative Christians repeats the part about conservative religious organizations; again, I think we need to state that only once.

(The statement in the lead that "The most high-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be conservative religious organizations", does not accurately reflect the source used, Kenji Yoshino's "Covering", which states that, "In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations. These include fundamentalist Christian groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland." Yoshino does not say conservative religious organizations, and he places an emphasis on fundamentalist Christian groups that seems to have been censored out of the lead),

The lead also mentions "fantasy modification" as a form of conversion therapy, though the source used (Haldeman) does not discuss fantasy modification as a separate method but only as one technique of sex therapy. I pointed out that problem before, but got some evasive and unhelpful reactions. I'm simply going to go ahead and change this if there are no relevant objections.

The theories and techniques section needs to have the Bioenergetics removed, since it's synthesis. I think it would be helpful to expand it through my sandbox material here [9]; here again, I proposed this before, but there were no relevant objections. I will be inclined to simply make the addition to the article if there are no relevant objections. BG 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoshino is wrong to limit the scope of support for conversion therapy (in its widest definition) to fundamentalists. Conservative Christianity is much more accurate. (Fundamentalism doesn't exist in the same way outside America, where Pentecostalism is the more prevalent form of Evangelicalism.) I understand that the test is verifiability, not truth, so we need to source this properly. I suggest that in the lead this does not need to be footnoted, but it should be found latter on in the article. My only concern is that someone will cry "synthesis" just because we are using two sources. Hyper3 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you realize that verifiability is the issue, not truth, then why even make that objection? Wikipedia policy doesn't permit editors to use only reliable sources that support positions they happen to agree with. BG 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Just the facts coalition"

A number of claims in this article are sourced to an unsigned pamphlet for students by "Just the facts coalition."[10] It should go without saying that this is not a reliable scholarly source, yet some fairly sweeping claims are cited to it. Is there any good reason we're using it?24.22.141.252 (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It should go without saying that unfortunately this anon is a sock but we're unable to prove who at the moment, although User:Peter Damian is a leading contender. For those wishing to investigate the reliability of this source here is a press release from the group from which we can read - Members of the coalition are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the American School Health Association, the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Education Association and the School Social Work Association of America.

First formed in 1998, the coalition produced the original version of "Just the Facts" to respond to concerns that school personnel were receiving inaccurate information on the issue of sexual orientation. The updated publication reflects the coalition's continuing concern about the safety and well-being of gay, lesbian and bisexual students. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reliable to me. Mish (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

Much of the controversy stems trying to include information about efforts to change sexual orientation, which isn't necessarily conversion therapy, such as the ex-gay section, aesthetic realism, and information from the most recent APA report. If this page is meant to exclusively discuss things that have specifically been classified as conversion therapy, then it would make sense to have a more general page which would include all efforts to change sexual orientation. I was thinking about naming the page Sexual orientation change efforts, following the way that the most recent APA report referred to it, but I am open to suggestions. I was thinking it could be the main page for the category Changing Sexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that term? We must avoid OR and SYNTH. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[11] Again, that specific term is only a suggestion. It is the concept that needs a page. There is a lot of energy and discussion about sexual orientation change efforts, and I think we should cover it. This page only covers one of several different efforts. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood and appreciated; suggestions are good; sourced suggestions are both good and might lead to improvements in the article. :-) I suggest other editors voice their view on the rename suggestion below; meanwhile, I note you have not voiced a view on the Jones/Yarhouse content; please do so in the section above, thanks. I'd like to see it even if you have no opinion; that way I know we're not leaving out editors who might wish to add their voice to the discussion. thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another article that refers to it as SOCE. [12] Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing in principle against this new article, provided it is not already covered under Homosexuality and psychology or some other article, but this article needs to remain to cover Conversion Therapy / Reparative Therapy. The new article should also include a historical overview which includes all the failed SOCE - aversion therapy, lobotomy/leucotomy, narcotherapy, electro-convulsive therapy, rubber bands round the wrist, etc., experimental treatments under National Socialism, hormone therapy, hypnotherapy, etc. Mish (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion is not for a new article. It is to move (rename) this article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting a completely new article, not a rename. I think there is enough material specifically on conversion therapy to warrant an article dedicated to conversion therapy, but I also think there is enough material on other SOCE to warrent an article dedicated to that. I was not suggesting we get rid of this article. The new article will summarize conversion therapy and point to this article, which is the main article for conversion therapy. Homosexuality and psychology only briefly covers SOCE. It should summarize it, but not go into extensive detail like a page dedicated to it can. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My error! I thought when you said "naming the page" you were speaking of this page! apologies and thanks for the correction. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I reread it and saw that it was ambiguous. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is how I read it, but to warrant a page purely for medical attempts to change sexual orientation, it would need to include all, not just psychological/psychiatric. I missed out surgical castration and chemical castration from the list. This page does need to remain, because there is a substantial amount of material here, and a history, that may be needed to refer back to (and may be useful in building new article). Mish (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It should include all efforts to change sexual orientation, not just psychological/psychiatric, but also medical and even religious and non-professional. Yes, this page will remain. Like I said, there is a lot of information that is specific to conversion therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical about whether a new article would be a good idea. Sexual orientation change efforts is a term that seems to have been introduced only recently, and we don't know whether it will be widely used in future, or whether it will be only used for one or two reports. If it turns out to be the latter, then creating a new article about it (it's currently a redirect to this article), would probably be a mistake; it may be better to wait to see if it comes into widespread use first. In any case, I wouldn't feel confident in working on such an article until I'm sure how WP:NOR applies here. BG 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point, and given the coverage already under this article, Homosexuality, Homosexuality and psychology and Ego-dystonic sexual orientation, with the same overlaps, repetitions, and potential for POVs and WP:SOAPboxing would this genuinely be a different article, or a fork? Mish (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are good questions. The situation we really want to avoid is one where SOCE doesn't come into widespread use in future, but a large amount of information is concentrated into a Wikipedia article about it. BG 23:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It will genuinely be a different article, not a fork. None of those articles that you mentioned discuss aversion therapy, lobotomy/leucotomy, narcotherapy, electro-convulsive therapy, rubber bands round the wrist, etc., experimental treatments under National Socialism, hormone therapy, hypnotherapy, surgical castration and chemical castration etc. I am hoping that by having one main article, we can cut down on some of the overlaps. Why do you think creating a new article would be a mistake? The concept certainly exists. It is not original research because there are several places that refer to SOCE. If in the future another term is used, and we decide to go with that term, we would just redirect to the new article. The content is what needs to be written, and Born Gay has been very adamant that this is not the place to discuss all SOCE. SOCE currently redirects here. If this is not the place to discuss SOCE, then there should be a page to discuss SOCE. If we shouldn't discuss SOCE here, and you are skeptical about discussing it on a new page, where should it be discussed? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose what I am concerned about is that this is a neologism, and while we should reflect existing usage, we should not be a party to promoting new terminology. That aside, I am all in favour of having an article which documents the history of trying to change people's sexuality, and which includes contemporary efforts in that context. The APA itself is unclear about what it means by SOCE - so when it dismisses the value of most recent research into SOCE (which would be ex-gay and conversion therapy surveys), it falls back on the earlier research (which would be looking at SOCE that predate these (presumably things like psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, behavioural modification, aversion therapy, etc.) - but I'd be skeptical about pinning that down specifically. That is why I suggest an overview that includes all the quackery that medical professionals have come up with to try and treat homosexuality - but that would not be called SOCE. It would be called something else. Mish (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What would you call it? To me sexual orientation change efforts clearly include all efforts to change sexual orientation. It is a self-defining term. There is already a page on Sexual orientation change efforts, and that incorrectly redirects to here. We won't be creating a page. If you don't want to develop the page on SOCE, where do you want to develop all the sexual orientation change efforts? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You know that it doesn't matter what you or I would call it, but what sources call it. I have reviewed the recent APA 'Therapeutic Responses', specifically pages 21-22, and they do seem to use SOCE to refer back to the earliest attempts, through psychoanalysis, past affirmation and depathologisation, to the present, and they state:

In this report, we use the term sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) to describe a method that aims to change a same-sex sexual orientation (e.g., behavioral techniques, psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, religious and spiritual approaches) to heterosexual, regardless of whether mental health professionals or lay individuals (including religious professionals, religious leaders, social groups, and other lay networks, such as self-help groups) are involved.

That is defined for the purpose of the report, but it seems to cover everything. If we were to base the article on this alone (as it is defined for that report, not as a general definition beyond the report) then I think we ought to do an RfC to Society, and notify the Sexology/Sexuality project specifically, to get feedback first, so that it doesn't end up referred for deletion for some reason at some later date. But I'm happy to go with this, as long as you reduce the material placed elsewhere and concentrate it in the new article, and provide summaries instead in the other articles, with links to the new article. So, for example, this article would be linked to from within a section SOCE with summary, and have a link back from here under 'see also' - while Ego-dystonic sexual orientation would have a link to the relevant section of SOCE under Professional treatment (which should be separated into affirmative, contemporary SOCE, and sexual-identity change), and a summary of SOCE under a subsection 'SOCE'. Similar for the other articles which are affected. If you do this, I will keep an eye on it to ensure it is NPOV and I will criticise and contribute as and when I am able. Mish (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Joshuajohanson: SOCE being a redirect to this page is appropriate. Most people searching for SOCE will be looking for information about conversion therapy. The term "SOCE" has been used so far in only one report, and maybe a few articles in Discover or other magazines that refer to it. As Mish says, we don't want to be promoting new terminology, we have to see whether it becomes standard or not. The limited material specifically on SOCE that exists so far gives editors little guidance in deciding what sorts of material would be appropriate in an article about it, and that's a serious problem when it's not fully clear how content policies like WP:NOR apply even to this article. We can't take it for granted that if SOCE doesn't become the standard term, a different term will become accepted for all change methods. Creating a new article that encompasses all attempted methods of change could prove to be a mistake for many reasons, one of which is that the task is unmangeably large and complex. Whether it would be a good idea or not is arguably off-topic for this page. BG 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not off topic. BG wants to restrict the scope of this article. I get his point, but don't necessarily agree. There needs to be a place for material that falls outside the scope of the article if it is defined narrowly. The suggestion would help resolve a dispute on this page. Lets not start restricting the scope of the talk page too!!! Suggest a better title if you have a better idea. Otherwise I think we should go with SOCE. We have the beginning of a collaborative solution. Considering the diversity of people and stances that are talking here, I think we should fan the sparks into a flame. Hyper3 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

BG said "Creating a new article that encompasses all attempted methods of change could prove to be a mistake for many reasons, one of which is that the task is unmangeably large and complex." I don't get your point. Are you saying we shouldn't have a page for all efforts to change sexual orientation because there is too much material? Personally, it just sounds like you don't want reliable, referenced material on Wikipedia at all, whether under this article or under another article. Can you please elaborate what these "many reasons" are? Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started a sand box page to work on Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Dumping Ground. Obviously it is not ready for publication. I'm trying to throw different things in there, and will trim later. Additional input would be appreciated. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm about ready to push this page live. I have also started on trying to consolidate the SOCE on other pages so it takes up less weight. Please have a look at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Dumping Ground and provide any criticism you might have. I will try to incorporate the criticism into the article to improve it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have incorporated many of them. Have one last look before I push it live on Monday. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your new article will undoubtedly prove to be a disaster. I'm not going to edit it at all, unless it is to turn it back into a redirect, but I'll wait for consensus before making such a move, since I'm not eager to rush into some new conflict with you. BG talk 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)