Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

derided by critics as "pray the gay away"

derided by critics as "pray the gay away" seems awfully POV. And this phrase has also, i believe, been reported in mainstream media. Or do all who employ the phrase become critics and are assumed to be deriding? Insomesia (talk)

I agree, the word 'derided' must go. Also, the use of the phrase "pray the gay away" in this article needs to be properly sourced. - MrX 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's POV about it. Pray the gay away is obviously not a compliment, so how is it POV to call the term derisive? Most media accounts that use the term make it clear that it's a term used by critics. Also, that specific wording was endorsed by several editors in the above RFC as to whether to include the phrase. That said, I'm open to wording this differently. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as sourcing, I looked at sourcing it when I added it, and found tons of sources using the phrase, but most were recent news reports and not about conversion therapy in general. Since I didn't find strong sources, I didn't add any yet.Ego White Tray (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Why did you add it without a source?
2. Why did you add it to the lead when there is no support in the body of the article?

I don't dispute that it's an appropriate addition to the article, but it needs to be done right. Belchfire-TALK 03:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For number one, I didn't find good sources and assumed everyone else here would be better at finding it than the lame Googling-research I'm capable of.

For number two, as I posted in a section above, the entire topic of cultural reactions to conversion therapy is missing from this article, and writing such a section would not be a trivial matter. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

There's been a lot of edit warring over the lead. I'ld like to remind everyone what WP:LEAD says: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lead should be a summary of what's in the article. If you want to add something, add it to the body of the article. Make sure that the lead summarizes the whole article, according to weight, and avoid WP:UNDUE. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the edit warring really needs to cease.

The content in question has been challenged as not having reliable sources behind it:

NARTH says that it repudiates aversive techniques and that it stresses therapeutic efforts toward changing "unwanted homosexual attractions" while respecting the rights of clients to self-determination.

I don't believe consensus has been reached here, or on RSN. - MrX 03:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at RSN is pretty clear that NARTH is a RS for what NARTH believes. Current consensus has been the NARTH statement is acceptable. Of course CCC applies.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you have a very creative interpretation of what constitutes a consensus. If you really believe that to be the case, feel free to post for a formal closing, because I, for one, challenge that such a consensus has been reached. - MrX 04:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal closes at RSN is uncommon. I suggest you read the section again. There is no disagreement that NARTH is not a RS for what NARTH says about themselves. The only disagreement appears to be whether RSN is the appropriate venu to discuss whether or not the NARTH blurb should be included. This is disruptive editing to a T by Insomesia.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• My observation is that the RSN wasn't really opened to discuss the reliability of the source. It appears it was actually opened to initiate a second, parallel discussion about content. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Furry. Naturally, that material should not have been in the lead if it wasn't also in the body. But I noticed that when you copied it down to the body, you forgot to leave it in the lead as well. I fixed this for you. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So should we, in a similar fashion, copy this edit warning that you just posted to your talk page? Or are you declaring that you're exempt per WP:TEFLON? - MrX 04:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding new content to an article isn't reverting, is it? Or are you suggesting/acknowledging that Furry's MrX's message about the lead representing the body was just a smokescreen and that the real goal was simply to remove material out of the lead altogether? ► Belchfire-TALK 04:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding new content to an article isn't reverting, is it? I guess you're having fun at my expense?

It seems pretty obvious that several editors have a problem with the content that you and LGR have re-inserted several times. Wouldn't it be better to try to work out a solution here? I'm sure there is a compromise that would accommodate most everyone's concerns - MrX 04:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

let's discuss. Happy new years to all btw from us east coasters.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what exactly is the concern? In case you haven't noticed, the goalposts have been moved at least twice. First it was "unsourced"; then the source was alleged to be unreliable; then there was supposedly no consensus to keep the material. Well, which is it? Or is it simply policy shopping in an attempt to slant the article against NARTH (which in turn requires that NARTH's responses to criticism be suppressed)? ► Belchfire-TALK 04:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Happy New Year to you too. Can we leave all that in 2012, and move forward on what do about the content, preferably without relying only on policies and guidelines? By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to it, as long as it's attributed and put in the logical best place in the article. 05:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ETA: 1st in, in 2013! - MrX

FWIW, i personally think conversion therapy is hogwash. Might as well teach a dog to be a vegan. But since NARTH seems to be in the thick of things, they need to be included in this article. BF is correct in that some of the tactics used here are distasteful. Maybe the adults can rise above it all?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a very simple matter of balance and NPOV. Some editors are bending over backwards to maximize criticism of NARTH and completely suppress NARTH's response. This is a bare nekkid violation of policy and common sense. It's against the best interests of the encyclopedia, regardless of where one stands on the subject of the article. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree NPOV needs to be kept in lead. We're not here to promote NARTH's views. Seeing as the article has had to be protected to stop you and Little Green Rosetta's tag-team edit warring to restore the information it is blindingly obvious there is no consensus to restore this information. It needs to be removed from the lead and restored only when there is actually consensus to restore it. Perhaps we should again employ a RfC to solidify the current status? Insomesia (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBPSEUDO

Perhaps it might be in all of our best interests to have an admin impose a 1RR on this article? We've all been using the "undo" button fairly liberally, and a 1RR would force us to talk things out in the future. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No objections fom me. I'd a appreciate an uninvolved admin to get some eyes on this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but I feel too involved to do it myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Would be nice to find one who edits outside of this topic area, preferably one unknown to most of the participants.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't disagree in principle that restrictions should be contemplated, I am opposed to using ARBPSEUDO as a vehicle to do it. The subject of the article doesn't meet the definition laid down in the arbitration case. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Nice one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"little or no following in the scientific community" seems to cover this quite nicely... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. There are trained psychologists working in this field, including a former head of the APA. It's a minority view, to be sure, but "little or no following" is a non-starter. You'll need to find a different rationale. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are trained psychologists working in the field. The AMA opposes it. The APA urges the use of "multiculturally competent and client-centered therapies...rather than SOCE". It's pseudoscience, plain and simple. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Belchfire, that this would be the only reasonable grounds on which to decline article sanctions. The response to this is, I feel, fairly simple: According to the latest motion amending the discretionary sanctions provision, logged at ARBPSEUDO as Remedy 14, "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." Seeing as part of this dispute has been argument over whether or not conversion therapy is pseudoscience, to me it's fairly clear that the "broadly interpreted" clause allows for extension of ARBPSEUDO to this case. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic falls under pseudo science, no? I think CT is less prevalent.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad comparison. Chiropractic never had a scientific foundation from the get-go; Conversion therapy is based in psychotherapy, which is recognized as valid science. The controversy over conversion therapy mostly stems from the disagreement over the susceptibility of homosexuality to treatment, not over the validity of the entire field of practice, as with chiropractic. And conversion therapy has political overtones, which muddies the water considerably. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The definition at the Arb case is "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." From a review of the article and talk page I see a subject that is both described as having a scientific basis and which has "little or no following in the scientific community", I do not see the "often being..." clause as limiting. And as near as I can tell the article uses the term pseudoscience in the lede. As to the claim that it's "based in psychotherapy", the article defends any association of the two with a single non-neutral and apparently non-notable source, and note studies which appear to argue against efficacy from the 1950s. The argument for such a linkage is weak, and independently illogical (To make an analogy, astrology may be "based on astronomy", but that doesn't make it science.) These pseudoscience articles are inherently drama-magnets, that this is a political football is not something I'd argue, but in my view, that strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for any otherwise warranted editing restrictions. While I have not edited this article at any time, I'm still not convinced that I'd be seen as uninvolved enough to act as an admin on this question, and there are tons of other admins, so I'll leave my opinion and move along. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, sadly, it's only a psuedoscience topic when we're talking about sexuality conversion therapy. When it comes to gender conversion therapy, there's sadly a noticeable support for it in the psych community, including one of the people cited in this article as being critical of Spitzer, is a strong proponent of conversion therapy for transgender children, who was among one of several people the NGLTF criticised for being given positions influence in the DSM-V taskforce for sexual and gender identity disorders:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is questioning the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) recent appointments of Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D., to chair the Committee on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), and Ray Blanchard, Ph.D., to serve as a committee member. These appointments are raising great concerns within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Zucker has built his reputation on the position that children can be directed away from nonconforming gender expression via therapy, while Blanchard has a long list of articles pathologizing commonplace expressions of sexuality and gender.

— National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, May 28, 2008

In actual fact, would it be within the remit of the article to mention gender conversion therapy? It does happen, and there is sizeable controversy that some professionals (especially at CAMH, funny that...) are advocating that and not just sexuality conversion therapy. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus must be obtained prior to further changes

Someone posted at WT:MED asking for another set of eyes here. Due to the ongoing edit warring and this being pseudoscience this topic falls under discretionary sanctions. Please obtain consensus using a RfC before changing the issue in question further. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, Doc. Are you imposing sanctions, or just reminding us that we're dangerously close to an admin doing it? If the former, could you clarify them and put up an editnotice, please? And if the latter, are you acting in an administrative capacity, or an editorial one, or some mix of the two? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I too am confused. Additionally I hope you are only suggesting that we start an RfC (not a bad suggestion IMO).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am strongly suggesting that everyone stop edit warring as continuing this will only lead to people being blocked. 3RR is a clear bright line but technically edit warring occurs before reaching this point and some will block before reaching this number. I am however not one of these admins but will fully protect this page if this sort of editing continues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat vauge response to Francophine's question, but welcome to the page in any case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Renounced" vs "Reassesed"

I fail to see why we are using a blogs interpretation of the retraction of the study. Actually I fail to see why this blog is in the article at all. Besides the obvious fact is is not a RS, its author is not an an academic. Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the primary source of the retraction and it's wording, which is "retraction"?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources help establish notability, and offer an analysis and deeper understanding. In this case, the specific word 'renounced' is used by several secondary sources, so it seems to be a reasonable word to used. - MrX 03:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Which sources use this besides the blog entry that was recently added? In any case, I think we should remove the blog.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see one source given in support of "renounced": Huffington Post - obviously not neutral. "Withdrew" or "recanted" are good neutral and accurate alternatives, and that's the sort of language we should be using here. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "retracted" is the exact word we should be using. It doesn't mean that he is throwing the whole study on the scrap heap, such as the other words indicate. It simply means he is withdrawing his conclusions from the scientific community.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

truthwinsout.org, skippingtothepiccolo.com, New York Times, World News, politic, alwrinkles.com, diversityvillage.com, iit.edu, thinkprogress.org, regator.com, portlandpsychotherapyclinic.com, chicagotribune.com, richarddawkins.net, newsworks.org, scpr.org, emergence-international.org, religiondispatches.org. That's just a sampling from the first 50 Google hits out of about 16,000 results. - MrX 03:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind removing the blog entries from the Huffpost and use one from the NYT/CT?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The online news story (not a personal blog) is a perfectly valid source. I have added a second, print source, that uses the same word. - MrX 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The HuffPost is not a newspaper but an opinion site that occasionally reprints articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, we shouldn't use the NYT for this. I recognize most of those sources as biased on sight, without even checking. Come, dude. You bring us Truth wins out? And then you pretend to be a neutral editor?

The problem should be obvious - "renounced" carries connotations of condemnation, which is not neutral or accurate and shouldn't be in our article. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One, we have to utilize the sources available to us, and not editorialize. Two, CT is a pseudoscience, almost universally condemned by professionals. We're unlikely to find sympathetic sources which meet standards. You're confusing "NPOV" and "SPOV" (sympathetic) I think. Neutral doesn't mean not calling bad things bad, or pseudoscience pseudoscience, and so on; nor does it mean writing things from the proponents POV. It means writing the article from a dispassionate and factual POV, based on RSs. And the NYT is a RS, Belchfire. KillerChihuahua 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We lived in a biased work, and I have yet to see a news source that is not biased. Here is another source: "...prominent psychiatrist Robert Spitzer renounced his famous 2001 study claiming that some gays could become straight via so-called reparative therapy." - Philadelphia Inquirer

- MrX 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Even neutral sources occasionally use biased language. That doesn't mean we have to repeat the error here, and we especially shouldn't do so when their choice of words is so clearly over the top. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it "over the top" please? I don't see it. KillerChihuahua 03:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

'Renounced' is over the top? Spitzer said, "I was quite wrong in the conclusions that I made from this study. The study does not provide evidence, really, that gays can change. And that’s quite an admission on my part." That sure sounds like a renouncement to me. - MrX 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Experience in academia might lead you to a different conclusion. However since the sources say this, I'm fine with the word.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the zing, I guess. - MrX 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant the body politic aspect. Not your schooling.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Body politic of which country that rules academia, again? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I'm really not following your reasoning here. KillerChihuahua 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Academics are often quite petty, childish and overly sensitive. But we never get that here, right? <g>  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you meant it as an allegory or comparison. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, I was confused as to what you meant. KillerChihuahua 04:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is such a thing as journalese. Ever heard a real-life human being use the word "slain"? Probably not, but you can read it in the newspapers every single day. This is a similar case. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I have indeed heard people say "slain" but that oblique comment of yours clarifies things not a whit. KillerChihuahua 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"The problem should be obvious - "renounced" carries connotations of condemnation, which is not neutral..." Given the fact that "conversion therapy" has been condemned by every professional organization qualified to comment on the issue, I fail to see the problem here. We don't do fair and balanced and we certainly don't present psuedoscience as a disagreement between equals. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue here is the author of one study, not the pronouncement of the relevant professional community.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It all comes down to overall objective. If the objective is to neutrally describe CT and it's history, then different language is needed. If the objective is to use Wikipedia as a platform to further discredit and marginalize CT... carry on, we're doing a fine job so far. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an academic, I think the word "renounced" is an accurate and entirely reasonable term to use to describe Spitzer's statement. However, as a Wikipedian, it seems to me that this debate might be ended by avoiding either term in favour of Spitzer's own words. How about...

In a 2012 statement, Spitzer described his conclusions regarding the efficacy of conversion therapy as "quite wrong," stating that his "study [did] not provide evidence, really, that gays can change." He added that "that’s quite an admission on my part" and went on to apologize to the gay community for making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy, calling it his only professional regret.

Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That might work, but it should be followed by a summary of the statement from NARTH pointing out that Spitzer was acting under duress [1], and we should also note that the publisher,Archives of Sexual Behavior, has refused to withdraw the study because it says there is nothing scientifically unsound about it. In fact, if we can cover the duress part properly, I'll even assent to putting back "renounced". ► Belchfire-TALK 11:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Including NARTH's opinion on the matter would be WP:UNDUE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so whose response do you propose to include? ► Belchfire-TALK 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is not always a response worth including, and this appears to be one of those cases. KillerChihuahua 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the account being presented is one-sided and, perhaps, partly fabricated, it seems to me that telling the entire story is absolutely essential. After all, we're aiming for a neutral and factual article, right? ► Belchfire-TALK 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We are aiming to tell the reader that this topic is derided as pseudoscience, and why. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Spitzer's quote is already in the article. I think 'renounced' provides a very accurate, succinct, neutral summary of his words. I am also strongly opposed to providing a counterargument to Spitzer's renouncement, as it would be entirely undue. There is no "other side of the story" He renounced his work. There is not a (factual) story that says he did not renounce his work. - MrX 13:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; there is no appropriate counterpoint to his renouncing of his paper. He didn't recant his renouncement. KillerChihuahua 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the NARTH link, it presents no evidence supporting a claim of duress or coercion. It has conjecture and opinion, but I see nothing that would warrant mention in the article. The Editor's view is relevant, in my opinion, but NARTH distorts what he meant. MrX, my suggestion was in place of the paragraph with the quote, not an additional use of the quote. EdChem (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That was my understanding as well. My concern was that the quote alone is insufficient, and would omit important context, especially the part about retracting his own work: "Spitzer has requested that all "ex-gay" therapy organizations such as NARTH, PFOX, American College of Pediatricians, and Focus on the Family stop citing his study as evidence for conversion therapy."- MrX 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning that Archives of Sexual Behavior stands by the paper and won't retract it, and the reason why, would probably be sufficient. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

MrX, you're right - I meant to replace the start of the paragraph, I didn't mean to remove the part you quote. Belchfire, the important part is the reason why... retractions of whole paper s are generally cases of fraud or falsified data. Papers aren't retracted over data interpretation, and especially in a case like this where commentary and critique raising the issues was published with the original paper at the time. Spitzer now judges those critiques as largely correct. All, I think better quotes are Spitzer's actual apology from the letter to the editor. NB: the renouncement includes Spitzer speaking of the original paper's "fatal flaw," which is pretty clearly a renouncement. EdChem (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

many broken links

All broken citations:

• Drescher 2006
• O’Connor & Ryan 1993
• Lewes 1998 Please check this one. I found a publication that fits [2], but it could be a typo with "Lewis 1989"
• Jones 1955
• Stanton 1991
• Young-Bruehl 1988
• Gay 2006
• Katz 1976
• Terry 1999
• Bergler 1956
• Bergler 1962
• Marmor 1965
• Hooker 1957
• Bieber 1962
• Ellis 1962
• Ellis 1965
• Socarides 1968
• Kronemeyer 1980
• Moberly 1983
• Norcross, Koocher & Garofalo 2006
• Bayer 1987
• Freud 1992 (there is a "Freud 1991", mistake or different papers?)
• JonesandYarhouse 2007
• Spitzer 2004 (there is a "Spitzer 2003", mistake or different papers?)
• Kirby 1957 (maybe a confusion with "Kirby 2003"? Kirby, Michael (2003), "The 1973 deletion of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder: 30 years on", Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37 (6): 674–677, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2003.01269.x {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))

I fixed:

• Domenici 1995 (you have to cite all the authors in "last1", "last2", "last3", etc,):
• O'Connor & Ryan 1993 (it was using "’" in one place and "'" in the other, they are different characters to represent the apostrophe)

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

P.D.: Install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to spot these errors very quickly. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. Thank you. - MrX 14:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all.

All cites are now fixed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Problems here start early

I'm two sentences into this article and I already see significant problems. For something to be called "pseudo-scientific" it has to have pretensions to a scientific basis in the first place, something like, say, phrenology. Yet here we have something that at the begining of the article is nicknamed "pray the gay away," linked to fundamentalist Christianity, and thus, it would seem to me, is based on faith rather than on pseudo-science. Of course, when I look down the page I see early examples of "conversion therapy" which seem to have little or nothing to do with religion so the whole thing seems rather a mess. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You should call up the authors of the first five references and argue with them. Wikipedia goes with reliable sources, and they say that this stuff is pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it would make more sense to argue with those who, in all likelihood, probably purposely picked out sources that specifically called it pseudo-science. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh, that's what you're supposed to do when making a claim: cite specific sources.

Also, you may want to read up on the subject. Yes, it primarily comes from a religious origin. Some of the practitioners, however, are claiming that they have a medical basis for their therapy. That opens them to scientific scrutiny, and their "science" doesn't pass the smell test. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I may want to read up on the subject but I don't really need to in order to observe that the second sentence of the lead says "Such therapies are associated with Christian fundamentalist groups and are derided by critics as 'pray the gay away.'" Leads are supposed to preview the main points of the article, but there is relatively little in this lengthy article that connects conversion therapy to "Christian fundamentalism" or "praying the gay away." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of that has been moved to sub-articles, due to length. That leaves most of what's here to be the pseudo-scientific claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Umh . . . so what? That still leaves us with a lead that would have the reader believe that Christian Fundamentalism has been, and continues to be, the great purveyor of "conversion therapy" and an article that doesn't deliver the goods. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not linked to "fundamentalist Christianity", it's only its opponents trying to make this link. The proponents pretty much pretend to scientific status. 78.8.2.35 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dianetics

I have a copy of Dianetics which claims it can be used to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, if they choose too. 24.94.251.19 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? Hebradaeum (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Conversion camps

Apparently there exist summer camps in South Africa that parents there can send their children to to be "converted" from gay to straight. I can't find a place to put it in the article, but it should be in somewhere.--Auric talk 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Request for comment - Pray the Gay Away

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Request for Comment here is simple: Should the term "Pray the gay away" be listed as an alternate name for this therapy in the article - and if so, should it be boldfaced in the first sentence? The term is used a lot, arguably more than the official conversion therapy name, but other editors have objected to it for being slangy and pejorative. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Weak include - This is definitely a tricky issue. And policy does not give much guidance. I was able to find this bit: WP:POVNAMING. This is what I found most relevant, "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." And then this part, "Instead, alternative names should be given 'due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate." So the real question is what do the reliable sources say and how prominent is each among them? For the record, Google searches do get used in debates about article content, especially with regards to redirects and disambig pages. Though to be fair, they can be unreliable. So here's my preliminary research:

Regarding the redirect

• Google search of "pray the gay away" "our america" produces 71,500 results.
• Google search of "pray the gay away" "conversion therapy" produces 255,000 results.

This seems clear to me that the redirect Pray the gay away should point here.

Regarding the article lead

• Google search of "conversion therapy" homosexuality produces 307,000 results.
• Google search of "pray the gay away" homosexuality produces 1,040,000 results.
• Google search of "reparative therapy" homosexuality produces 236,000 results.

This indicates to me that the most used name for this practice is "pray the gay away".

One could argue that the article name itself should be changed based on these results, but keeping with the scientific theme in Wikipedia and within the article, I think it should be fair to include something along the lines of, "or pray the gay away by critics" within the lead. Unless contradictory evidence is provided, that is my opinion. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include as a synonym. I would oppose naming the article 'Pray the gay away', but it should redirect here, as it's a generally recognizable term, and it unmistakably refers to this subject. FurrySings (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Don't include. What a sad, sad comment on Wikipedia that it is even necessary to discuss this subject. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia, not a playground where people can rubbish a therapy that they don't like by using slang, popular culture terms as though they had the same status as terms used in scientific literature. The article is meant to reflect what reliable, scientific sources say about it's subject - and it should use the terms for it they use, which don't include "pray the gay away." That should be the end of the issue. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a scientific subject - it's pseudoscience garbage. And even real science has cultural issues that go far beyond the scope of mere science, such as evolution. Obviously teach the controversy belongs in a evolution article, even though evolution is science and teach the controversy is not. Same here, cultural responses to this pseudoscience matter, and one of these responses has been to name it "pray the gay away". Ego White Tray (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether conversion therapy itself is scientific is neither here nor there. The relevant question is what sources that are scientific call it, and that doesn't include "pray away the gay." The use of that particular, vulgar expression of conversion therapy by some of its critics is a very minor point for the article. It does not belong in the lead, which summarizes only the important points. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientific sources are less relevant than others because THIS ISN'T SCIENCE. We're discussing an article about a pseudoscience and you're demanding scientific sources? That's crazy. The pseudoscience of this has reached the point where many scientists refuse to research or publish anything having to do with this. This isn't a scientific topic, it's a society and religion topic. I would bet that you couldn't find a single thing anywhere in Wikipedia policies that says we should only use scientific sources. Because it isn't there, you're just making that up. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

[3] )Legal, not medical, source) KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hebradaeum, while I understand your reaction to including something with such a strong connotation, you have to understand that Wikipedia does not exclusively use "scientific" sources. They need only have a "reputation for fact checking". Consider the utility of the matter. When users type in "Pray the gay away", they're redirected here, and presented with an article that doesn't have any mention of the phrase they actually typed in. This is unfair to them, so I think it's necessary to include it within the first sentence to confirm that yes, this is the page they're looking for. It's not really our place to pass judgement on the most common name by excluding it entirely. Rather than trying to dismiss our good faith efforts, I think it would be more constructive to propose some ways you think we could properly balance the first sentence, once it's included. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why "pray away the gay" should direct to this article - the fact that it currently does do this doesn't mean that's the way things should be or must be. Hebradaeum (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason you see no reason to redirect there is your continual choice to ignore overwhelming evidence. We have Google searches that show this phrase used for conversion therapy way more than the Lisa Ling show. We have citations to legal journals, which is the type of formal writing required to be valid in your apparent opinion. A source doesn't need to be scientific to be valid, especially for this topic, WHICH ISN'T SCIENCE. Big Bang was a term invented by critics to insult the theory - should we change the name of that article? Ego White Tray (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

[4] - Psychology journal uses the phrase and clearly equates it with reparative therapy. So even your "no scientific sources" claim is wrong. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet searches show how often a term is used on the internet, not necessarily in the real world. Plus, they don't show that "pray away the gay" is a term used for non-religious forms of conversion therapy. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Our evidence, shakey as it may be, is infinitely more trustworthy then the absolute lack of evidence you've put forward to support your view. Consensus building does not mean that you can simply say, "nope," you have to try to convince us as well. So how would you establish how these phrases are used? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include: Commonly used exact synonym of conversion therapy found in many relaible sources, notable enough to be mentioned in the lede. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Dominus Vobisdu, it is not an "exact synonym of conversion therapy." Conversion therapy includes many different forms of treatment, ranging from aversion therapy and behavior modification to psychoanalysis, that are not religious, and in particular, do not involve prayer. How, then, could it possibly be reasonable to say that conversion therapy's critics call it "pray away the gay"? Do they do this, in your view, even when discussing totally non-religious forms of conversion therapy? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still a synonym. The only reference to "pray the gay away" that anyone has found in this discussion that isn't about conversion therapy, is to a TV show about conversion therapy. It's clear that the phrase doesn't mean anything else. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include. Perhaps something like: "also known as pray the gay away in popular culture".--В и к и T 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What I had placed earlier was "...and derided by critics as pray the gay away..." Ego White Tray (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But not all "critics" actually call it that, so why imply, wrongly, that they do? Hebradaeum (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good thing he didn't suggest that, then. He didn't say "all critics" or "most critics" he said "critics" with no modifier, which IMO would be found by any reasonable reader to mean that it was critics who said that, not that all critics have said that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely Don't Include - The article only makes one reference to prayer of any nature... this is absolutely inappropriate for this article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But considering that it is almost always religious groups endorsing this, the word "pray" is hardly a stretch. And this is not about what we wish people would call it, it's about what they do. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Conversion therapy includes many non-religious forms of therapy that have absolutely nothing to do with prayer. So, it's obviously misleading say that it is derided by critics as "pray away the gay" and if any kind of common sense was to be found on Wikipedia, we wouldn't even be discussing this subject. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, that's what critics think. We don't omit stuff because we wish it wasn't true. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, you have no interest in portraying conversion therapy truthfully or accurately. Fine then. The discussion is over. Hebradaeum (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That is straw man bullshit and you know it. Critics call conversion therapy "pray the gay away." That is the truth. That is what they actually call it, so it's accurate too. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include as a colloquial synonym, per FurrySings. Miniapolis (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Leave redirect only, as that covers anyone searching for the term, and do not include; or else include as "derided by critics as..." (still keeping redirect, obviously.) In order of preference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to a compromise. Create a subsection that explains that this is a colloquial phrase used to describe it by those outside the movement, and then redirect the other page to that subsection. I have a problem labeling it as such when those within the movement would reject the colloquialism. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Don't Include Perhaps the slogan could be reported as used by some when speaking of conversion therapy, but conversion therapy is not advocated on such simple terms. The "therapy" does not have the support of the scientific community but it bases its approach on the interpretation of scientific and psychological principles. Some conversion therapists have done harm to their clients but it is not because they advocated praying for them. Many view homosexual behavior as a choice to be made or not made; not just miraculously solved through prayer. This kind of labeling is trivial and does not represent the advocates for the practice. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How is only including terms used by advocates compatible with maintaining a neutral point of view? Ego White Tray (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include I see this phrase used, at times exclusively, referring to conversion "therapies" which are now under pending legislation in the US to make illegal. They are chiefly tied to extremist religious groups and as such pray the gay away is an accurate if unintended comical portrayal of proponents' beliefs. Reliable sources should lead the way in how we present this facet of the subject. Insomesia (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely wrong. "Pray away the gay" implies that conversion therapy is the same as prayer, which is not the case - it involves all kinds of things, ranging from sitting on a couch talking about mommy and daddy, to having one's genitals zapped with electricity, that have nothing to do with prayer. So, the term is stupid and inaccurate, there should be no need to discuss whether the term should be added to the lead as a synonym for conversion therapy. Adding it is just a beautiful example of why Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be taken seriously - maybe Wikipedia should be renamed Micky Mouse-ipedia? Hebradaeum (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. I also didn't suggest doing anything that wasn't supported by reliable sources. And yes, the basic concept including electrocution et al is included by some as simply praying away the gay. Its a fallacy that on the face of it sounds innocent enough but involved real life long term abuse to real people. I support adding the phrase with due weight as supported by reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is a link to possible sources for "Pray away the gay". I agree that we need to let sources lead the way on this so these may help. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There are apparently two common synonyms in use, "Pray away the gay" and "Pray the gay away". The second seems to be more common (sources). FurrySings (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include: Commonly recognized reference term for conversion therapy. WP is to inform. Including the term aids finding the article . Simple.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For the sake of this discussion, I'm treating "pray away the gay" and "pray the gay away" as identical. These phrases are similar enough to get identical treatment. Only one would require mention in the article, since the other would be obvious. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] The phrase "pray away the gay" is apparently widely used, and thus the term should be mentioned in the article. Should it be boldface in the first sentence? No, it doesn't appear to be an official synonym, but instead is more of a colloquial or slang alternative. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the Lead section, in 2nd or 3rd paragraph, but not bold in the 1st sentence. --Noleander (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface As per Noleander. The term is in common use but it is not an exact synonym or a proper technical term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include - but not in boldface As per previous editors. However the article should identify the possible bias, something like "...and derided by critics as pray the gay away..." as per Ego White Tray or "also known as pray the gay away in popular culture" as per В и к и. The article should also mention that prayer is not the only treatment included in this therapy. - Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems very strange to note that conversion therapy is sometimes called "pray away the gay" and then immediately add that that is an incorrect term for it, since conversion therapy includes methods that have nothing to do with prayer. Actually, there is no evidence at all that "pray away the gay" is used as a term for conversion therapy per se as opposed to specifically religious methods of changing sexual orientation that do involve prayer. Which is why there is no reason it should be mentioned in the lead. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing odd about that. It is a jocular or pejorative term commonly used by critics. There is no reason we should not inform readers of that fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maclean's uses "pray the gay away" as a term for conversion therapy[5]. So do PBS[6] and Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology[7]. The The San Francisco Chronicle states that "Practitioners often are religious, and gay rights groups have derisively characterized the therapy as an attempt to "pray away the gay." " [8] The Huffington Post states that "The American Psychological Association has repeatedly repudiated reparative or conversion therapy techniques (also known colloquially as "pray the gay away" techniques)"[9] Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't include. Prayer is not conversion therapy. Prayer is a personal relationship with the Divine, notwithstanding anything fundamentalist and evangelical groups may assert. Conversion therapy is not needed for something which is not listed in DSM-IV.Whiteguru (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was removed

When I visited this article, the hatnote was still there but there's no explanation of the term in the article. I agree with previous commentators that while we're not a dictionary, it's inherently confusing to redirect a non obvious term to an article, and then provide no explanation of the relevance of the article you've redirected the reader to. And I don't think the term is quite obvious enough that it requires no explaination. Although it's been a while, I see no evidence to consensus above has changed. In other words, while I don't necessarily disagree with this editor [10] that there's no reason to mention Christian fundamentalists two times in the LEDE, i do think the removal of the term was wrong and have therefore reintroduced it [11]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lead

Right now, the lead paragraph is mostly a series of quotes from the American Psychiatric Association. I don't think that reads well. WP:LONGQUOTE says "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." According to MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph of the lead should define the topic and establish the context. I think that the lead paragraph should be rewritten to define the topic and establish the context, and that the quotes should be paraphrased and the quotes themselves hidden in the citations in the '|quote=' field. FurrySings (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The only (semi) long quote that I see is this 21 word quote:

"while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable".

It could possibly be written in a more concise manner. In my opinion, all of the other quotes are necessary, because there are editors who have argued repeatedly that we are misrepresenting sources. By using short quotes, that argument disappears. I don't believe that the current lead is overly difficult to comprehend, but it could probably use some polish. - MrX 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The 21-word quote is represented in full in a cite quote parameter, so it might be summarized rather than quoted in the intro. Its message should not be muted, however. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just for the first paragraph, which now says:

The American Psychiatric Association has condemned "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[7] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[7]

How about this:

The American Psychiatric Association has condemned and called unethical psychiatric treatment based on "the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder" or that the patient should change sexual orientation.[7][8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation.[7]

FurrySings (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadger, etc

I would like to ask MrX what, precisely, he sees as being the significance of Isidor Sadger and Felix Boehm? How exactly do you think information about these obscure figures will be of benefit to readers trying to understand conversion therapy? Despite the edit summary you used, I don't believe that either of them is in any way a "notable" figure for this field. Most literature on conversion therapy doesn't even mention them, so far as I know. I note that you did not restore the material about J. Vinchon, Sacha Nacht, and Daniel Lagache, which I removed earlier this month - why are Sadger and Boehm more worthy of mention than Vinchon, Nacht, or Lagache? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think discussing those people help our readers understand the history of conversion therapy, and that in turn helps set a context for understanding the contemporary views. Yes, I intentionally did not restore the other three because I agree that their historical roles were minimal. Both Sadger and Boehm (de.wiki) have articles.

How about if we shorten and combine some of these sections? I do think they are a little lengthy and do not need separate sections. - MrX 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You asserted that Sadger and Boehm were "notable figures" in this field; I'd like to see some actual evidence of that. I doubt very much that contemporary conversion therapists owe anything to either of them, and I think it's questionable that the material about them here will benefit readers. Including it may actually confuse matters, by exaggerating the importance of such figures. I would be all in favor of shortening the sections if you would agree to that, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadger here. If you read Isidor Isaak Sadger you will see that he was active in researching homosexuality cures and even influenced Freud to some extent. Boehm was the president of the German Psychoanalytic Assembly. His research on the causes and "cures" are well documented in secondary and tertiary sources (examples). I am not claiming that contemporary conversion therapists owe anything to these two, only that they merit inclusion in the article for historical context. While their research may be fringe by today's standards, they both seem to have been quite notable, at least in their own time. - MrX 02:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the historical context argument is dubious if these figures didn't meaningfully influence later developments in conversion therapy. The key question has to be whether literature on conversion therapy standardly mentions them, and the answer, so far as I know, is that it doesn't. For me, the ideal would still be to remove mention of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that your "influence" argument convinces me that this material should be removed any more than my "historical context" argument convinces you that it should be included. If there is no room for compromise then I guess we should wait for others to weigh in. - MrX 13:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other views would be helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Banning of the practice on minors

California and New Jersey have banned conversion therapy for minors. This does not apply to religious institutions. If I remember correctly, they have been upheld, so far. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it is relevant and important to include legal developments on this issue. I would appreciate that we try to remain neutral in comments in this public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.143 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research

I have removed the following passage, as original research:

'Nicolosi's "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" clarifies that Haldeman's interpretation of his work, cited above, is inaccurate; Nicolosi explains that some males are temperamentally more sensitive and esthetically oriented and can never be expected to act in a way that is stereotypically masculine. As Nicolosi says, "A gender-nonconforming boy CAN be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle--and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician--and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are 'who he is,' part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits." Nicolosi adds, "With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood."'

The citation given was page 48 of Nicolosi's book about preventing homosexuality. I happen to have a copy of that book. I have looked up the passage, and it does not support what appeared in the article. The relevant part of Nicolosi's book reads as follows:

'But make no mistake about this: A gender-nonconforming boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle - and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician - and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are "who he is", part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits. With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.'

That passage cannot be used as a criticism of Haldeman. It does not even mention Haldeman, or say anything about Haldeman's interpretation of Nicolosi's work. To use the passage to criticize Haldeman is unacceptable original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)