Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Need a better reference!

I can't access Referrence #108, my computer can't find what's supposed to be on the otherside of the link. I don't want to just yank the reference? Or should I? ALso the next sentance say's that the APA is looking into the study, but the actual article is more vague, stating that the APA wouldn't comment because it's doing it's own investigation. It doesn't say if it's investigating that specific study or just researching the same subject as that study. Kairos (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

I moved the sections on conversion therapy in areas outside the US to a section at the end of the article called "World trends". As the "World trends" section states, conversion therapy outside the US largely tracks the trends occurring in the US. It does not make sense to begin the article by leaping from country to country, decade to decade, describing what has occurred and is occurring throughout the world in regards to CT. While we should get to that information at some point in the article, the article should not begin with that. We should first describe where CT originated, and what it is.

As much of CT centers in the US, it makes sense to focus on the psychoanalytical origins of CT, followed by the US history of CT (as this was the "hotbed" of such activity), followed by modern US trends (as this is where the majority of it centers), followed by world trends. You may compare the version which listed the world trends at the beginning of the article, with the version which lists the world trends at the end. Thoughts? Whatever404 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason you gave in the edit summary, "political/social trends must not be placed before discussion of the history and definition of the practice(s)", is confused and mistaken. The "World Trends" section is about the history of conversion therapy in various countries; there is no difference between this and political/social trends. That conversion therapy outside the US tends to follow trends there is not by itself a reason for shifting the sections. That conversion therapy originated in the US is factually wrong. European psychoanalysts like Felix Boehm attempted it before Americans did (see, eg, Kenneth Lewes's The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, p. 51). The 'psychoanalytic origins' of conversion therapy were in the work of Freud, who was not an American. Since you have given no satisfactory reason for your preferred arrangement of the sections, I am going to shift them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.135 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 October 2008

The version to which multiple editors have reverted does not propose that CT originated in the US. It first relates the European psychoanalysts' writings, and then moves on to more modern CT attempts in the United States. The majority of CT as we know it today centers in the United States. It is entirely reasonable to focus first on CT's psychoanalytic origins, its centrality in the United States, and then, later on the trends in the rest of the world.

And, no, the World trends section does not focus on the "history" of CT worldwide, it provides virtually unrelated snippets of information from various decades. The material is disjointed; it does not provide a clear description of CT. It is nonsensical to jump from continent to continent, decade to decade, before describing the topic of the article! The version to which multiple editors have reverted first describes the history of CT, the majority of CT activity, which happens to center in the US, and then various trends elsewhere in the world.

At the moment, is that two established editors (myself and User:Pip2andahalf) have made edits to restore the version with World trends at the end. If you wish to instate another version, I advise you to provide reasons that might convince your co-editors to agree to those edits. At the moment, there is no consensus to have the material in the order you prefer. I strongly encourage you to cease edit-warring, and to engaging in civil discussion. I have described, at length, the reasoning behind these edits. You have provided minimal explanation for your own; and instead have focused on attacking the other version. This conversation cannot move forward unless you describe the reasoning for your actions. Please provide a clear explanation of why the list of sections for various countries worldwide should come at the very beginning of the article, prior to any explanation of what CT actually is. Whatever404 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, of course the version that you reverted back to didn't say that conversion therapy originated in the United States. It was you who apparently implied that when you wrote, "We should first describe where CT originated, and what it is." Your statement that the article "first relates the European psychoanalysts' writings" is wrong. Krafft-Ebing was not a psychoanalyst. Freud is the only psychoanalyst mentioned in that section. Material about other early psychoanalysts is something that could usefully be added; Lewes is a good source.

If you have such material you could certainly bring it up in a new Talk section for discussion. Whatever404 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

World trends at the bottom works well. The information in each country is way to scatter-shot to lead the article. We should keep that section at the bottom for now, per Whatever404.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Debate

There is no reason for a separate 'political debate' section, and I have accordingly shifted its contents into US history, where they belong. The section was misleading because it starts, 'Conversion therapy has become highly politicized, and the ensuing debates "have obscured the scientific data by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."' That, and the rest of the information in that section, was misleading, because it makes it sound as though it were about political debate in all countries, whereas it in fact applies only to the US. I don't think there is any reason why my edit should be undone, but if someone absolutely insists on doing that, the section should be retitled. It is just as wrong to call it simply 'Political debate' as it would be to call 'Legal status in the US' simply 'Legal status.' It has to be perfectly clear what exactly it is about.

Since no one has responded to the argument given by the editor above, I presume that there are no serious objections or counter-arguments. If no one objects soon, I will make this change. Devil Goddess (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I am going to merge the sections. Devil Goddess (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Krafft-Ebing

I am considering deleting the brief mention of Krafft-Ebing in this article, although I am not yet sure this is the right thing to do. It contains information about Krafft-Ebing listing homosexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis, and his views on what causes it. This is not information specifically about conversion therapy, although it can be argued that it provides added context. I think it should definitely stay if Krafft-Ebing's views influenced the development of conversion therapy, but I confess that I'm not sure about this. Sources are needed. Unless someone can add something about how Krafft-Ebing influenced conversion therapy, it is perhaps dubious to mention him here. Devil Goddess (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Explain removal of material from article

I have removed the following text from this article, "Individuals who feel conversion therapy has been helpful have protested the policies of the APA, stating that their views on issues such as the immutability of homosexuality have caused real harm to real people and patients." The source of this is an article from CNSNews.com, currently available here. The part of the article there that presumably is supposed to support this claim is the following observations by Randy Thomas, ""As a former homosexual, when I was involved in the 1980s promoting the gay agenda, our only focus was to seek tolerance," Thomas said, "whereas today's political activism has moved from true tolerance into political domination and power. It's an amazing thing to watch a group that said they were oppressed become oppressors."" Note that Thomas does not say that he changed from homosexuality through therapy, or that say that he thought conversion therapy helped him. Devil Goddess (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is Unbalanced

This article contains a wealth of information on mainstream mental health organizations' perspectives on conversion therapy. However, its coverage of pro-conversion-therapy perspectives is deficient. In particular, there is a large section devoted to mainstream criticism of conversion therapy, with only a tiny subparagraph containing the responses of pro-conversion-therapy organizations and individuals and no mention of the substantial questions that have been raised about the basis for the mainstream organizations' stance. Also, the section on effectiveness gives short shrift to pro-conversion therapy perspectives. Much of the article reads like a defense of the mainstream perspective on conversion therapy, rather than an even-handed explanation of all sides of the issue. I do not believe this is appropriate, especially given that the article is supposed to be about conversion therapy. Perhaps there should be a separate article on mainstream mental health organizations' opposition to conversion therapy. BSOR (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Following your suggestion would give undue weight to the minority opinions that exist in suport of conversion therapy. We aren't here to provide balance, we just let the facts speak for themselves. ANd the facts are that most of the metal health industry is agianst conversion therapy. Kairos (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kairos, I would respectfully suggest that you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that Wikipedia is supposed to let the facts speak for themselves. On the other hand, you are concerned about giving "undue weight" to the minority opinions in support of conversion therapy. Acknowledging that multiple perspectives exist does not give "undue weight" to anything. An article about conversion therapy include all of the facts on conversion therapy -- not just the majority perspective of the mental health establishment. I maintain that the article is grossly unbalanced. BSOR (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does give the different perspectives. Of course the pro-conversion side will raise question about the consensus just like ID supporters raise question about the consensus on evolution. Some the pro-conversation therpy is not supported by the mainstream scientific community then it gets the short end (See WP:DUE). 207.118.232.73 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As the guy above me pointed otu we already do give different perspectives, my concern about undue weight relates to your comment about giving them an "equal" amount of coverage which would NOT be letting the facts speak for themselves. Kairos (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be neutral, you would have to present the opposing viewpoints and then give arguments for and against each viewpoint, citing references to substantiate your statements. I would leave discussion of religion and morals out of the article since that gets away from the central issue of whether people can sometimes change their sexual orientation. I agree that the term 'reparative' is loaded/biased. Maybe 'change therapy' or 'change program' would be agreeable to all sides. Joseph Nicolosi and Richard Cohen, two prominent proponents of secular change programs, never propose to change happy homosexuals. Both authors emphasize that they aim to help change those with unwanted homosexual attractions. So, the single, narrow issue is: does change therapy work for some people, some of the time? Ironically, Dr. Irving Bieber, one of the key advocates for the APA's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual, now believes that change is possible for some people, some of the time: approximately 25% become exclusively heterosexual, and some become bisexual. While many cannot change their sexual orientation, some apparently can. Note Bieber's article in Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, edited by H. Tristam Engelhardt Jr., and Arthur Caplan, Cambridge U. Press, 1987. Oxford and Cambridge are certainly at least on par with Harvard and Yale, if not superior. Read it with an open mind and consider making reference to it. Fib12358 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving arguments for and against each viewpoint is exactly what we don't do on Wikipedia. What we do do is give information from reliable sources. In the case of something like this, pro-conversion organizations are considered fring groups by reliable mainstream science, which considers conversion therapy a pseudo-science. According to WP:FRINGE, "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects . . . Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." Exploding Boy (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that present both views, although the bulk of sources suggest that conversion therapy is harmful, and that claims about conversions are not backed up by hard evidence. The relationship with religious motives for converting (both those who promote and those who wish to convert) is also documented. Provided the religious aspect is sourced accurately and reliably, then it should not be an issue making the point. The main thing is that the problems with using such a therapy for something that is not a mental health issue per se, but for the issues that can arise when trying to live in an environment where homosexuality is stigmatised - and/or where it is used for what is seen as a moral issue. Mish (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

EB, I do not believe your reply is neutral. This time, I will number each point I am making, stating for each item whether it is fact or opinion. To demonstrate neutrality, you can reasonably do exactly the same. Does that seem fair and honest? Clearly, there is a difference between belief and knowledge, and there is a difference between opinion and fact. For knowledge to be sound, we must be scrupulously neutral about presenting all the relevant facts. (1) Fact: Dr. Irving Bieber was one of the most persuasive pro-gay voices in petitioning the APA in 1973 to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual. (2) Fact: Today, that same pro-gay man, Irving Bieber, is still pro-gay and is not trying to push change on homosexuals who want to stay that way. (3) Fact: Bieber conducted a study to explore whether some homosexual men really can change completely to heterosexual thought/fantasy/arousal patterns/orientation/however you want to put it. (4) Fact: Bieber followed up, for 5 years, on all men who claimed complete change. (5) Fact: Some men decided they were gay after all. Some vascillated between bisexuality and heterosexuality. But 25% of the originally homosexual men still claimed to have had exclusively heterosexual thoughts. This fascinated Bieber, and he questioned them every way he could think of until he was satisfied that these men indeed had successfully changed sexual orientation. (6) Fact: Of course, simple math tells us that conversion therapy most often does not work, i.e., 3 out of 4 homosexual men who attempt reparative therapy will not make a significant change in sexual orientation (7) Fact: In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement stating, "there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of reparative treatments." (7) Interpretation: the same man who passionately advocated for homosexuality no longer to be stigmatized as a psychiatric diagnosis code in 1973 is the same man who today states that to his surprise, he is thoroughly persuaded that homosexual men can change to complete heterosexuality approximately 25% of the time. (8) Opinion: The APA is appropriately maintaining neutrality. On one hand, it observes that Bieber's interview-style study is not based on an objective set of criteria asked the same way every time for all participants in a truly random population sample, guaranteed to be free of self-selection bias. On the other hand, it does not dismiss the potential significance of this study, considering that it comes from the godfather of gay emancipation. (9) Opinion: Years ago, people became wise to snake oil as a hoax, peddled by unscrupulous merchants as guaranteed to regrow hair. But it's fairly common knowledge that Rogaine and Propecia sometimes work for some men in doing just that. Of course, there are never any guarantees, but some people swear by these drugs. (10) Opinion: When I was in middle school, Pluto was still a planet. But now science has decided that it is not. Several times in history, science has been mistaken at the top of its lungs. (11) I think a fair statement to add to your article would be that reparative therapy is controversial and many in the mental health field even consider it potentially harmful but that more scientific corroboration is necessary to make a conclusion. Fib12358 (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Irving Bieber was not pro-gay, and did not try to have homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Bieber is dead, so any statement about what his current views are on homosexuality would be wrong. Are you, by chance, confusing him with Robert Spitzer? Born Gay (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply because research that has been criticised for its methodological flaws reported that 25% changed, it may still be harmful, because 75% were subject to ineffective treatment. A 10% failure rate is one thing, but a 75% failure rate is a problem, so the evidence is there - but not evidence that it is a useful therapy; the evidence is that it is harmful, and the new evidence does not displace that evidence. Mish (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I'm confused by this sentence:

In 1998, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement opposing any treatment which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that a person should change their orientation, but did not have a formal position on other treatments that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean - wouldn't a "treatment ... based upon the assumption that ... a person should change their orientation" automatically be an "attempt to change a person's sexual orientation"? What did the APA actually say? Graymornings_(talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pathologizing

An editor reverted one of my edits; she stated that the word "pathologizing" for a psychoanalytic approach that held that homosexuality was an illness was not neutral. That is wrong in my view. Obviously, if the theory is that homosexuality is an illness, then it is pathologizing homosexuality. Born Gay (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good place to bring this. Whomever reads this should see also User talk:Born Gay for brief conversation. WordyGirl90 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it again. I maintain that the word is clearly POV in this context. My edits have kept the meaning of the sentence the same while removing the strident tone.

74.70.44.210 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) You can maintain what you like, but your version is definitely NOT neutral. "Pathologizing" is a neutral and completely accurate term for a theory that defines homosexuality as an illness. Furthermore, your edit distorted the facts - it makes it sound as though it is only Nicolosi's theory that has been repudiated by the psychoanalytic mainstream. Actually all such theories have been repudiated. Your version distorted the facts, so I reverted it. Born Gay (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Without understanding any greater context for this discussion, Born Gay's edit seems reasonable to me. Could someone please be more specific about what the NPOV issue is here? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor I replied to has claimed several times that the word "Pathologizing" is POV, but has not given any reason. His claim that his edit preserves the meaning of that sentence is incorrect - it drastically changes it, shifting it from a general statement to a statement specifically about Nicolosi. His most recent reversion changed it back to his version with an "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of edit summary, still not giving a real reason. Born Gay (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources cited, but it seems very unlikely that all of these references are dedicated only to rebutting Nicolosi, and rather do directly address the issue of "pathologized" homosexuality. Am I incorrect in my assessment here that the stronger wording suggested by User:Born Gay is supported by existing sources? If so, please confirm. If not, then I suggest that (after a few days) we should restore User:Born Gay's proposed wording, or some other satisfactory wording which addresses his concern. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the original editor who thought that "pathologizing" was non-neutral. I now don't think it's a big deal at all. I hear what Born Gay is saying about the slight twist by calling it "Nicolosi's theory". The original wording was "the above theory", which I thought was completely neutral and adequate. As I think this over, I realize that "pathologizing" struck me as POV because I imagined it to be a phrase like "degrading", which is clearly POV. I'm probably wrong...the whole article is about homosexuality viewed as a disease...i.e. pathologized homosexuality. So, all in all, it's probably just fine wording.

One note, though, and I may be over-reacting here. Does "this pathologizing psychoanalytic approach toward homosexuality has been repudiated by the psychoanalytic mainstream" sound rather strong when "pathologizing" is coupled with "repudiated"? Perhaps the anon's suggestion of "rejected" isn't a bad idea. Anyway, just a very small concern.

WordyGirl90 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources being used to support the statement about Nicolosi's views being rejected by the psychoanalytic mainstream is Richard Isay's book Being Homosexual. This book does not even mention Nicolosi, which is not surprising, since it was published in 1989, before Nicolosi's first book was published. It plainly does not support the statement given in the article, which needs to be changed (and incidentally, although it does not use the word "pathologizing" it does identify Bieber and Socarides as people who viewed homosexuality as a pathology, and they are the people it criticises). Born Gay (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what the afterthought is. WordyGirl seems opposed to the word "pathologizing", and you are (rightly, IMO) opposed to the overly specific reference to Nicolosi's views. Perhaps another wording altogether of the sentence should be ventured? I will give it a shot myself, if no one else steps forward. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Silly rabbit. Your edit addresses my concern.

208.105.149.80 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good edits, everyone! The sections in question look to be moving in the right direction. Oh, and to clarify after what Silly rabbit said...in my thoughts above I tried to explain that I no longer opposed "pathologizing" as POV. The new wording is better, anyway.

Keep up the good work, everyone!

WordyGirl90 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream psychoanalysists

...sounds like a contradiction in terms. (You may as well speak of mainstream astrologers.) How about we include a proper critique by a real psychotherapeutic organization or psychological organization such as the APA, rather than some scattered articles by psychoanalysts? user:silly rabbit 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that psychoanalysis is discredited, but that's not really the point here. The important thing is to make it clear that views like Nicolosi's have been repudiated even by most psychoanalysts and their organizations. Born Gay (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I have left your version of the statement about psychoanalysts essentially intact, with some modest copyedits. I have buffetted it with a more mainstream psychotherapeautic view that is hopefully supported by the rest of the article. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Behavior Modification Section

I believe that this section should be removed or incorporated into another section. It reads as follows:

"Practitioners who view homosexuality as learned behavior may adopt behavioral modification techniques. These may include masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, and social skills training. The most radical involve electroconvulsive therapy, a form of aversion therapy."

This subsection is located within a larger section on contemporary techniques of conversion therapy.

There are several issues. First, this subsection is repetitive; it covers the same ground as some material from the history section. Second, the last sentence is misleading; from my quick read-through of the cited study, the study does not indicate any current use of electroconvulsive therapy, but only mentions its use prior to 1980. Therefore, this statement does not accurately reflect the cited source and is irrelevant to a section on contemporary techniques. Third, I have not been able to access the Haldeman study, but I am dubious about the cited statement that "masturbatory reconditioning" is a method currently used by conversion therapy practitioners. If anybody can find the study and check to see whether it really says this, that would be great. I have done a bit of searching and have not seen any indication that any pro-conversion-therapy practitioner espouses this approach, so I cannot corroborate the statement from any other source.

Thoughts? 208.105.149.80 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the source for the electroconvulsive therapy reference - it seems to be concerned with the use of this therapy since the 1950s and as far as I can see does not mention that it has not been used since 1980. I have no opinion on the other issues you mention. Born Gay (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After a second look, I see that another paragraph in the source was more open-ended regarding the time frame. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.44.210 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Should History Section Be Split Into a New Article?

This section of the article is fairly long, and the article is quite long as well. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The history section could probably be better written and organized than it is, but I see no reason why it should be turned into a different article. Born Gay (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Conversion therapy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 15, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• The article fails to provide the broad coverage of its subject required by the good article criteria. The majority of the History section is concerned with the situation only in the United States. Why is a nationalistic persective required to understand the history of conversion therapy?

• The article also fails to focus on its topic. What is the relevance of the long quote from Freud to conversion therapy. for instance?

• There are many unaddressed requests for additional citations, expansion of certain sections, or pov warnings.

• "In 1952, the British government subjected Alan Turing to hormonal treatment after he was arrested for having sex with a man." What is particularly significant about Turing's treatment that it deserves to be singled out? Turing wasn't "arrested for having sex with a man" in any event, as there was no such charge; he was arrested for gross indecency with another man, the same charge that Oscar Wilde had faced.

• There are five dead links.[1]

• The list in Criticism of conversion therapists should be converted to prose. Why is this a criticism of "therapists" when the article is about therapy, not therapists? I'd expect if anything to see a Criticism of conversion therapy section, but criticism sections are generally deprecated in favour of distributing the criticism at the appropriate points throughout the article, to give a more balanced narrative.

• The External links section needs to be pruned. Please refer to WP:EL.

• Citations need to be formatted consistently, with full details including publisher and last access date for online references. See refs #117 and #120, for instance.

• "... may cause high levels of emotional stress for LGB people." What does LGB stand for? It is not explained anywhere in the article.

• The lead is too short to provide an adequate overview of the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that this article no longer counts as a good article. I disagree with some of the reasons you give - the quote from Freud discusses conversion therapy, pointing out its limitations, so it seems clearly relevant. Also, criticism of conversion therapists seems proper in an article about conversion therapy.

I am not sure what the difference is between "gross indecency" and having sex with another man; I agree that this part should be changed if it is not correct. I have tried to fix some of the article's problems. Born Gay (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article was about therapists rather than the therapy then I might be inclined to agree. "Gross indecency" covers a multitude of sins; it doesn't specifically or uniquely refer to penetrative sex. The point I was making was that the actual charge against Turing ought to be accurate, and it wasn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what meaningful difference there is between criticism of conversion therapy and criticism of conversion therapists, at least if the criticism of the conversion therapists is about how they conduct or try to justify conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way. What is the subject of this article? The more important point you ought to be considering though is whether or not the article is balanced and presents a neutral pov with the criticism hived off into a separate section. My judgement is that it is not. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well how would you change it? Born Gay (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Several months have passed. Are there any plans to address the changes which led to this article's loss of its GA status? If nothing is done to restore the GA status of this article, perhaps we should consider reverting the article to the GA version. Whatever404 (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing what I can to address these problems. I believe that I have dealt with some of the issues Malleus Fatuorum mentioned, including the requests for additional citations and the POV warnings, I have corrected the information about Alan Turing, I have fixed the dead links or removed them, converted "criticism of conversion therapists" into prose and integrated it into the rest of the article, pruned the external links, and rebuilt the lead. That leaves expanding the coverage of conversion therapy in other countries. I have done a small amount of work on this, and hope to be able to do more in future. Please don't revert the article back to the way it was when it was last listed as a GA. There are a large number of problems involved with doing this - it would break many links, among other things. Born Gay (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than reverting the article back to the last version listed as a GA, I have taken a close look at older versions of the article and restored content that was removed from them to the current version when that seems appropriate. That seems to me a much better way of doing things than wholesale reversion, which would mean the loss of many changes that may have been improvements. Born Gay (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no plans to engage in wholesale reversion. I would just like to know how to go about restoring the GA status. Is the article ready for that? What is the process? If it is not ready, how long will it be, or how much work will it be? Whatever404 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly not ready for restoration of GA status at the moment. It needs expansion of information about conversion therapy in countries outside the US, and probably some formatting and similar kinds of changes. How long will this take? I have no idea - but it's Wikipedia and there is no deadline. Born Gay (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I believe the mention of criticism of conversion therapy in the lead should remain focused on gay and lesbian groups specifically, since they have played the most important role in criticising conversion therapy (that was what I was trying to say in my edit summary, but I hit the save page key before I finished writing it). The sources of the article do not mention non-GLBT "human rights" groups that have criticised conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Aesthetic Realism should be included in the history section. The New York City-based group promoted itself as a provider of conversion therapy in the 1970s and 1980s. (Perhaps ironically, it believed men could be cured of homosexuality by studying poetry.) It achieved nationwide attention when some converted members were interviewed on national TV. The group put out a book and took out advertisements in major newspapers across the country. They became targets of gay rights groups in the 1980s and, in 1990, stopped making public claims about homosexuality (thogh they still promote the therapy for curing other disorders). Nowadays it's mostly forgotten, but I think it may deserve a sentence in the history section. See Aesthetic Realism#Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality for an overview.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, add a mention of if there's a source. Born Gay (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the general turmoil in this article, I don't want to throw any fuel on fires or overheated bearings. While interesting and noteworthy, this is just a small detail so I don't want to give it excess weight. Even a full sentence may be too much. I was just checking sources and notice one book in Google's snippet view that lists it as a "quack therapy" along with Reichian vegetotherapy (which is probably accurate, though other sources give it a little move prominence). Aesthetic Realism's conversion therapy was mostly in the '70s and '80s, so I'm thinking that this could go just after the Primal Scream material. Something like, "Other notable non-medical therapies that promised change included Aesthetic Realism and vegetotherapy."   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bergler section

You asked for comments, so my initial comment is on Bergler, giving his views prior to 1938 without detailing his practices in the 1950's seems a bit odd. I will supplement this when I have time. Also, does Bergler talk about 'conversion therapy' in 1988 per se, or has somebody made some connection between his approach and conversion therapy? I do not have access to the source - but unless Bergler can be demondtrated as having described his approach as 'conversion therapy', then it should not be claimed that he was talking about this. My reading of his work is that he was talking about something more akin to aversion atherapy. Many of the points you make in the lead are about aversion therapy, not conversion therapy which antedates aversion therapy - it is important not to confuse the two. Aversion therapy was about stopping people acting upon their sexual feelings. If you are saying that conversion therapy is the same as aversion therapy, then this should be called aversion therapy instead. Pretending that what was aversion therapy is the same as what is conversion therapy is problematic. Mish (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the historical section is inaccurate. You can put this as historical background on the development of understanding about homosexuality and approaches to treating it as a disorder, but it is specious to describe the historical approaches as conversion therapy. What developed out of these approaches was aversion therapy. Conversion therapy is a relataively recent approach from the USA, and is tied-in with the idea that homosexual is sinful and for this reason people will seek re-orientation or conversion to avoid the stigma and ostracism associated with it. This is very different from earlier approaches, and they are not about conversion therapy. To describe them this way breaches NPOV, because it seeks to give a contested practice an appearance of authority that it doesn't have. Mish (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the information about Bergler's views on the causes of homosexuality is rather detailed and may not necessarily seem appropriate to the article. However, Bergler's claims in the 1950s about how homosexuality should be (as it were) cured depended crucially on his earlier theories about the oral basis of homosexuality. So although this information isn't directly about conversion therapy, in my judgment it is necessary to include it here. It may not be an ideal approach, but at the moment I can't see a better way of handling this. You're entirely right that there should be more about Bergler in the American history section, but it's perfectly easy to add that information. Bergler did not, to my knowledge, ever describe his approach as "conversion therapy", but I don't see that as being in the slightest way relevant, since what he did does fall under the definitions that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have provided. The same thing is true of the other writers mentioned. Born Gay (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you agree it is not about conversion therapy, so why call it conversion therapy? I have no issue about this (and aversion therapy generally) being included as part of the background to an article about conversion therapy. What I do take issue with is describing earlier theorists and practitioners as if what they were doing was conversion therapy when neither the term nor concept had been developed. So, what I would suggest you do is re-work the historical section as a background section, change where people who (or approaches that) pre-date conversion therapy are described as having something to do with conversion therapy, and then pick out where ideas where later picked up in the construction of conversion therapy using appropriate sources. Otherwise, the bulk of the historical section becomes a synthesis - because it is arguing that what some people were doing was conversion therapy before conversion therapy had been constructed, and yet that cannot be demonstrated from the sources, only by interpreting the sources this way. It is a revision of the history, on the basis of developments that came later, to make that history appear to conform to the developments that came out of that history as if there was a consistency between the later development and the earlier ideas and practices. That is an argument one might make, but it would be original research. Either way, it is not encyclopedic. The NPOV is not to make claims about the pedigree of conversion therapy, but to document the history accurately, and show how conversion therapy was developed and how some pointed to historical examples to support their work in this area.

That is not what I said the problem about Bergler was. What I said was that Bergler's approach in the 1950's is not dealt with, and this is significant. Bergler's approach was that the best way to treat homosexuals was to abuse them as much as possible - bullying, victimisation, lying and breaking confidentiality were all seen as appropriate ways of dealing with homosexuals, because they were masochistic and only through extreme victimisation was there any possibility of their becoming aware of the masochism that drove them. He argued that the liberal approach which tried to help and support homosexuals was wrong, because this did not help them understand their situation in the way that an intolerant approach would.

If you like I can go through and add stuff about Bergler, and edit the history section in a way that it doesn't make claims about people doing conversion therapy before the term had been coined - although I do not really have time for that. I would far rather you understand what I am getting at, and go through it and correct it accordingly. Mish (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's simply not relevant that the term "conversion therapy" wasn't used by Freud or Bergler or any of the others. Per the definitions given by the relevant organizations, attempts to change sexual orientation through psychotherapy or psychiatric treatment are conversion therapy regardless of whether the people doing them describe them that way or not. I don't agree that this is synthesis or original research. The American Psychiatric Association's position statement on conversion/reparative therapy (http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200001.pdf) indicates pretty clearly that it considers these older approaches to be conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant when you lay claims to them using 'conversion therapy'. As the APA say here: "In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality". In describing what they refer to as "reparative" or conversion therapy the APA are making clear they are describing a new phenomenon which draws on earlier approaches. If you are not happy about rectifying this innacuracy, I can address this in the text itself quite easily. Mish (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply wrong. Conversion therapy is a general term for psychotherapy or psychiatric treatment intended to change homosexuality. It does not apply only or mainly to religious approaches, as you incorrectly stated. One misleading quote ("In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).") doesn't prove your point. It's clear that it applies only to one particular subset of therapists, not to all of them. The sentence before the one you quoted reads, 'The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15).' Take a look at sources 10-15. They include Freud among other people, so there is no need for additional sources to show that Freud was talking about conversion therapy. The APA indicates clearly that it considers older approaches conversion therapy. Regarding Bergler specifically, he is mentioned in Kenneth Lewes's book, which the APA mentions as a criticism of conversion therapy.Born Gay (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the additions you made, "Since 1990 attempts to change sexual orientation originating in a Christian context have become known as conversion, reorientation, or reparative therapy. These reflect understandings that sexual identity can be 'converted' from what is seen as an abnormal, sinful or diseased homosexuality to heterosexuality, sexual attraction and/or practice 'reoriented' from the same sex to the opposite sex, or damaged sexual attractions 'repaired' through therapy.", does not appear to be properly sourced. I see it as quite misleading and unhelpful, as well as original research. There's no indication in any reliable source that conversion therapy specifically refers to therapy in a Christian context; actually, sources show the reverse of this, eg, that it's simply a general term for attempts to change homosexuality through therapy, whether Christian or not. Born Gay (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from the APA article you cited - if I am wrong, then so is the APA - or you have misinterpreted them. Have you read the Spitzer study and peer commentaries?

The whole way these sections are broken down is scrappy - it needs reorganizing. You go through Austria and Germany historically, but not in a clearly marked history section, then have Lacan in the history section even though the citation of his approach is from 1997, have a section on recent developments, from the 1980's, and have items from the 1950s and very recent from the UK. Apart from the fact that the Freuds, Bergler etc. did much of their work after the 1930's in the USA you have kept them in the Austria section, you have Hirschfeld in there (who was not interested in stopping homosexuality because he was queer himself), and you are citing people as doing conversion therapy when they weren't, they were experimenting on gay people to try and find ways of curing them of homosexuality - as you rightly say using aversion therapy, hormones, castration, lobotomy, etc. That has nothing to do with conversion therapy, which is a relatively recent concept. I have no problem with you showing the influences that gave rise to conversion therapy, but I do take issue with you saying that what somebody like Bergler did is conversion therapy. You asked people to have a look at this article and make comments - at least you could have the courtesy when they take the effort to do so to listen to what they are saying instead of saying it doesn't matter if you say things that weren't conversion therapy were - in an encyclopedia it does matter. Conversion therapy is the way Christians have managed to justify continuing to treat something that is no longer regarded as a mental illness as if it is a mental illness - when it was regarded as a mental illness it was not called conversion therapy, it was called treating homosexuals.

I was trying to tidy up your sections when you reversed my edit - which makes me a bit pissed really, because I don't have that much time to go back and start all over again. I'm reluctant to go back and waste my time doing it again, and am tempted just to leave this as a rambling article about all the people who treated homosexuals over the past 100 years, which in your mind seems to have something to do with conversion therapy, but the only way you seem to justify that is by saying that some of them did conversion therapy - when they didn't. They lobotomised, castrated and other abusive things to gay, lesbian and trans people. Mish (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you have misinterpreted the APA, not me. You haven't really responded on that point. Austria and Germany are in sections by themselves because lumping all the history of conversion therapy (of which there is a great deal) into one big section would be an awkward approach. I'm open to reasonable suggestions about how the organization of the article might be changed. The citation of Lacan being from 1997 is irrelevant, since it concerns his views and practice before that time (by which point he was dead). Regarding Hirschfeld, the historical fact of the matter is that he did indeed refer gay people who wanted to go straight to conversion therapists. We might wish it were otherwise, but that is the truth, and the article should not conceal the fact. You offer no sources to support your claim about conversion therapy being specifically a Christian term, which it plainly isn't. Born Gay (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop wasting people's time by asking for help you are not willing to accept.

• The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15). In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).
• The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27). Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39). There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).

What this suggests to me is that what the APA are talking about is a new synthesis of old ideas in a religious context. But you believe what you want. And you organize it how you want. And if you want to call castration, lobotomy, and negative eugenics 'conversion therapy', that's up to you. Mish (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you cut out the incivility and try to deal with other editors in a more respectful way. I would welcome any changes that would help make this a better article. Your changes have been, with I think only one exception, unhelpful and inappropriate. You've provided no proper reasoning or sources to back them up, and they appear to be based on little more than personal opinion. Opinion, along with vague comments about what the APA statement "suggests", are not an appropriate basis for editing. Born Gay (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you try being a bit more courteous and listen to what other editors are saying to you rather than dismissing them out of hand. It is you who set off discourteously, not me. Don't mistake my now telling you things straight with incivility. The history stuff needs to be that, a history section, and condensed. It is too long before you get to the meat of the article, and focuses on stuff that influenced what has become called conversion therapy before dealing with the actual article topic. The way it is written implies that what is being discussed with conversion therapy is the same thing as what was happening up to the 1950's. It is important that you draw a distinction for specific reasons. What is now referred to as 'conversion therapy' is a religious response to the liberalisation in law and medicine towards homosexual practice. It draws on a body of work that developed that was shown to be ineffective and rejected, and it re-introduces things that are known to have not worked and actually harmed people. What came before has been reframed, in a way that makes it appear new. In other words, what went before influenced what the article is about, but that was not regarded as 'conversion therapy', it was about treating, curing, or averting homosexual practice. That is all, it is not such a big deal. If it was 'conversion therapy' in the way you claim, you should be able to find citations that show this - but you won't find them, because Bergler etc. never used the term - it is recent. If you are stating that recent sources argue that people like Bergler were doing conversion therapy, then you need to cite who says Bergler was doing conversion therapy. If you are claiming that chemical and physical castration, lobotomy, electric shock treatment, aversion therapy, etc. were forms of conversion therapy, then you need to state that clearly, citing whoever has made that claim. If you are saying that the APA argue that earlier approaches were 'conversion therapy', then you need to cite where the APA state this explicitly. Now, you can ignore this if you like, but I'd suggest to you that if you do ask for help, then dismiss what those who have offered to help say, you are setting yourself up for a whole heap of trouble, because it is not the best way to go about things. Mish (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You write, "What is now referred to as 'conversion therapy' is a religious response to the liberalisation in law and medicine towards homosexual practice." No. That is factually wrong. It is your assertion, and has nothing to do with anything in the reliable sources that are used here to define conversion therapy. Endless reiteration of this factual untruth will not make it correct. The main source that shows that Bergler, and others like him, were doing conversion therapy is the American Psychiatric Association position statement on conversion therapy. I've already pointed this out, but you appear unable to read it correctly. Born Gay (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

World Trends

I have deleted the world trends section, moving some of the information in it to other parts of the article and removing the rest entirely. My reason for doing this is that there appear to be only five countries (Austria, Germany, France, the United Kindgom, and the United States) that have played an important role in the development of conversion therapy. Covering conversion therapy in all countries in the world is not possible here, and it would make the article much too long if this was attempted. Much of the material I have deleted is valuable and does belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but after some consideration I've decided that this is not the place for it. The biography of Robert Spitzer, LGBT Rights in South Africa, Homosexuality in China, Homosexuality in India, LGBT Rights in Denmark, LGBT Rights in Norway, LGBT Rights in Finland, and LGBT Rights in New Zealand are the articles that this material should be shifted to (it's an easy task to retrieve it from older versions of the article). Maybe links to this information should be included somewhere, but I think that's it. Born Gay (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations

There are no fewer than fifteen citations for the last sentence in the first paragraph, a paragraph in which every sentence has citations, for a total of 20 citations for a single paragraph. This strikes me as incredibly excessive. I suggest either splitting them up (so that each therapy given is cited) or trimming them considerably. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are probably too many citations there, I agree. I'll trim some of them in the near future. I don't see this as being anything more than a minor problem, however. Born Gay (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I miscounted: it's 17. Seventeen!! I think it's just overkill. If all those sources are valuable, then let's use some of them in other parts of the article. Anything more than 4 citations for a single sentence is too many -- in a paper-based article, you'd rarely see more than 2. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's overkill. Fine. But let's work to remedy it slowly and carefully, shall we? Like I said, it's not an urgent problem. Born Gay (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree to a point. We have many instances where numerous citations make sense and this is, after all, a highly contested area of public debate and research. I've bundled the refs that are only tied to that sentence which should help ease this concern. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

lede comment

Move Austrian writers who influenced the development of conversion therapy included Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, Eugen Steinach, Sandor Rado, and Edmund Bergler.[3][4] American researchers arguing for therapeutic conversion included psychoanalysts Irving Bieber, Abram Kardiner, Lionel Ovesey, and Charles Socarides, and psychologist Albert Ellis. further down in lede if it's needed there at all. -- Banjeboi 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change this. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article, and mentioning who influenced or advocated conversion therapy should be part of that. I'm not sure why this should be shifted, either. Born Gay (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite dense and unhelpful actually. They should be split firstly as likely unrelated. The "Austrian writers" bit should follow something that shows how Austrian writers greatly influenced the subject. "American researchers" should be tied to why research in America is notable. If I plop in "Cuban reseacher Foo wrote over ten studies on ___" in the lede it should show why it's notable they're from Cuba as well as why they are more notable from other researchers - ergo "Researcher Foo wrote over ten studies in the 1970s greatly influencing the use of ____ on ___." which is more specific and clarifies why this is in the lede. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think they are "likely unrelated"? It's unhelpful to say such a thing if you can't give a reason. The part about the Austrian writers should not follow something that shows how they greatly influenced the subject, that would be illogical. It should precede it, maybe, but not follow it. Why research in America is notable should be fairly obvious, and I'm surprised anyone would think that would have to be spelt out in the lead. Born Gay (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It may help to visit WP:Lede and get a sense of why ledes need to be written ina widely accessible way for a variety of readers, many, if not most who areunlikely to read anything but just the lede. I'm sure the current logic works for you but it doesn't for me and I'm reasonably familiar with the subject. I'm quite confident the vast majority of our readers will also need this information presented a bit more clearly as well. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest? FYI, I've now changed my mind about this. I think you're right, and that major changes are needed to the lead to make the importance of what it mentions clearer. Born Gay (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Preparing RfC on usage of 'Conversion therapy'

I have prepared a draft for an RfC on the usage of the term in this article here:

Is this a neutral enough way of phrasing the request? Mish (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It poses the question in a biased way that implies that you are correct, which you aren't. Born Gay (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Added POV tag to history section

There are a couple of POV problems in this article - one is questioning the religious and social conservative influence in 'conversion therapy' as being significant in how it is defined, despite references in the APA, Zucker, Drescher, Spizer, et al. The second is that despite there being no references to 'conversion therapy' for writers before 1990 by the APA, Zucker, Drescher, Spizer, et al., any attempt to highlight this has been met with reverts of fact tags and denial in discussion. For this reason, the neutrality is question of the history section in particular, but also other aspects of the article where the significance of religious (and social conservative) motivations in 'conversion therapy' is downplayed. Reading Zucker, Drescher, Spizer et al, this is of significance to this type of therapy, because from this it can be understood that 'conversion therapy' is a psychological treatment for something that is not a psychological illness, but a moral one. Mish (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither APA defines conversion therapy as such as being either religious or politically conservative. The other sources you mention also do not do this. Your claim that there are no references to conversion therapy for writers earlier than 1990 is factually wrong. The American Psychiatric Association position statement indicates that the term does apply to early efforts at changing sexuality orientation. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and you have just as repeatedly dodged the issue. Born Gay (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm - they only discuss it in that context. I have yet to find a source that does not discuss conversion therapy in connection with religious and social conservatism. No, the APA pragaraph with the one reference to Freud links to a source that does not detail anything like conversion therapy, only Freud's theoretical framework, which as it says in the APA text informs 'reparative therapy' - I have not found any reference to Bergler or Krafft-Ebing in the context of conversion therapy in the APA or any other source. I have pointed out repeatedly that you are misreading this as referring to earlier sources, particularly Krafft-Ebing (who is not even mentioned); in the process I have gone back to those who inform the APA - specifically Zucker, Drescher and Spitzer, in the Spitzer study and peer reviews and other writings, which include the connection to religious and social conservatism, and do not detail early sources as 'conversion therapy'. What does appear to be the situation is that the origin of what we now understand as reparative/conversion therapy is about 1980, and some sources refer to some treatments from the 1960's as conforming to what becomes reparative or conversion therapy. (most tend to refer to 'reparative therapy' - many arguing this is the same as 'conversion therapy', with some argue reparative therapy is a specific approach only applicable to people like Nicolosi - and others suggest that 'sexual orientation reorientation therapy' is a general description for therapies seeking to effect change in homosexuals, with 'conversion' and 'reparative' therapies being specific to certain types of treatment in a religious and/or socially conservative context.

In Sexual conversion therapy: ethical, clinical, and research perspectives, Ariel Shidlo & Jack Drescher, Haworth Press (2002), Jack Drescher in the paper I'm Your Handyman: A History of Reparative Therapies, says:

"Although psychoanalysts have proffered and claimed homosexual conversion since the time of Freud, a recently coined term, reparative therapy (Nicolosi, 1991), has come to generically define talking cures that claim to change an individual's homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one. Although other treatment modalities such as aversion therapies and psycho-surgery have also promied to 'cure' homosexuality, the history of reparative therapies has become inexorably linked with that of psychoanalysis." Then goes on to discuss the history of the theories of psycho-analytic practitioners from Freud and the relationship to homosexuality, as well as describing the evolution of reparative therapists from medically concerned practitioners to antigay political activists.

So, note that he is clear that reparative therapy is newly coined, and there is a demarcation between earlier psycho-analytic practice stemming from Freud, and later reparative therapy - and he is specific in distinguishing aversion therapies and psycho-surgery as 'other' than therapies aiming to convert homosexual orientation to heterosexuality, such as reparative therapy. This contradicts what is said in the lede - where these are listed as this type of treatment. The difference is significant, because the older therapies inhibited, suppressed or eliminated homosexual behaviour and/or attraction, rather than claimimg conversion to heterosexual attraction and desire. Mish (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition given by the American Psychological Association is clear, and it doesn't involve religion. Vaguely alleging that the 'context' shows that they think it is inherently religious is silly and unsubstantiated. You write that, 'the APA pragaraph with the one reference to Freud links to a source that does not detail anything like conversion therapy.' That's true, and totally irrelevant, since the APA clearly indicates that Freud was practicing conversion/reparative therapy. Krafft-Ebing's work meets the definition they give, and their not referring to him directly makes no difference. Note that they mention Kenneth Lewes's book The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality as a criticism of conversion therapy; Bergler is one of the people Lewes crticises. So it's clear the term does apply to Bergler. Everything else you say is irrelevant, as it's only your mistaken personal opinion. Born Gay (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Drescher's choosing to define the term reparative therapy that way doesn't alter the fact that other sources (the American Psychiatric Association) do not define it that way. It's not crucial, but your comment that "the older therapies inhibited, suppressed or eliminated homosexual behaviour and/or attraction, rather than claimimg conversion to heterosexual attraction" is wrong. Isidore Sadger claimed to do exactly what you say the older therapies did not attempt. Born Gay (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to plead ignorance about Sadger, so you can say what you like about him - I know a bit about Westphal, Krafft-Ebing, Ellis, Freud, Hirschfeld and Bergler - Bergler's approach was not at all nice, in fact, it was deliberately sadistic, because he argued that only by mistreating homosexuals could they ever have any hope of escaping their condition. I have read a copy of Bergler's book from the 1950's, and I thought I had it somewhere, but can't find it (maybe I borrowed it from the British Library). I really appreciate the changes you have made, it makes me feel much happier. There was a similar problem on the homosexual transsexual where somebody had out that Hirschfeld coined the term - when he clearly hadn't. I get a bit obsessive about things like that. It does read much better now. Thanks. I'll leave the others up to you - because I agree that the APA have made a very ambiguous reference to Freud. Personally, I wouldn't refer to anything before 1980 this way, although I could now accept that as far back as 1960 people were attempting this sort of thing. As for Bergler? My own view is he hated homosexuals intensely, and treated them the way he did in the hope that they would commit suicide, which I expect many did; I also suspect he had no interest in curing them, but he enjoyed being sadistic to them and used his professional position to develop a method for doing so - that would be a POV, though. Mish (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the sections on Krafft-Ebing and Freud to avoid leaving readers with the impression that they used the term "conversion therapy" partly in response to your comments. I don't think it makes such a crucial difference, but it is probably slightly better to avoid using the term where they're concerned. I believe that answers your argument that the History section is not in accord with NPOV. The tag should be removed. Born Gay (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great, I've removed the tag. You might like to think about how the history section could be condensed (and the lede, as Benji suggests; some of the earlier versions of the lede worked quite well, and material that is moved out could be part of an introductory section before or after terminology). Where Bergler is concerned, I think it is important to put his work after 1938 in the USA section, as he worked there for nearly 25 years, was featured in the media on this issue, and wrote books for lay readers, telling people that homosexuality could be changed. Looking at the last paragraph, perhaps that should be located with something on his work in the USA as well. I am happy to expand on his work in the USA, as he was important in conveying a certain sterotype of gay men there, as well as the idea that it was possible to cure people by bullying them out of homosexuality. Mish (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite open to suggestions about the lead. It could probably be improved in a number of ways, but I haven't seen any definite proposals so far. It would be misleading to place material about what Bergler wrote in the 1930s, before moving to the States, anywhere except in the Austria section. Post-1938 stuff does belong in the American section, however, so the final sentence of the Austrian section on Bergler might be removed or be relocated. Born Gay (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History of this article

I was taken aback when I reviewed the history of this article - two years ago it was at Good Article status, it was positively peer reviewed, and although it failed to make it as a Featured Artcle, got some positive feedback. By the end of 2008 it was still looking OK, having lost some of the USA-centric weighting, but much of the structure and content was still there. Then it began to envelop a massive history section which detailed the work of just about any psychotherapist or psychoanalyst in Austria, Germany & the USA who has ever treated a homosexual - Lacan is in there because he didn't do conversion therapy! Even the UK's Melanie Klein is in there now! Who next I wonder - Fromm, Karen Horney? I'm sure they must have treated a homosexual or two at one time or another. Eric Berne said something about homosexuality in one of his books I read 25 years ago, I'm sure - shall I look it up and see if we can squeeze that in somewhere too?

It has developed into an article about therapists and analysts who have treated homosexuals, sandwiched between a lede that is too long and a reduced discussion of conversion therapy at the end that from reading you would never know is promoted by religious groups as a gay-cure. It used to say something about this - and yet despite 30% of the coverage in some papers being on religion and coversion therapy, it hardley features in this article any more, even the APA statement talks about this - yet it seems this article has completely lost the plot. It is about conversion therapy.

The fact that it cannot make Good Article status any more should suggest something. That it was better before! And by comparing what was good about this article in 2007 (e.g. the lede), what was covered and what wasn't (the history of psychoanalysis and homosexuality), and reviewing the changes since 2007 to see what could have improved and what diminished it, then this would help to restore this article back to its former status.

This needs to be sorted out, or else the way it is going it will eventually get to a point where somebody puts it forward for deletion because the content no longer relates to the title. Why not take the bulk of the history section out, move it to 'history of people who have treatmed homosexuals' or something, and restore the earlier relevant background section, along with the earlier reduced lede, and the international sections - all as they relate to current practice, including the USA? Mish (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew I'd read it in Berne - 1969 - "If a homosexual wants to be 'cured', it is possible with enough treatment" p.253 in the 1981 UK Penguin edition of A Layman's Guide Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis, p.253. Better squeeze him in too... Mish (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is with the mention of Lacan. It actually relates more closely to conversion therapy than does some of the other information in the article (eg, the mention of the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder - the discussion of that here doesn't even mention conversion therapy at all). I added it not so much because of what it shows about Lacan, but because of what it shows about gay people in France - that they preferred to avoid therapists who tried to change homosexuality. I've no wish to add anything about Fromm, who never played any important role in the development of conversion therapy that I'm aware of. Mentioning Eric Berne would probably be a case of WP:Undue.

You may perhaps be right that the lead is too long; I'm open to suggestions about how it might be shortened (it was much too short in earlier versions of the article). What you say about it is incorrect; it does indeed mention ex-gay groups and their promotion of conversion therapy. It is quite wrong to suppose that because the article was deemed a Good Article once, but isn't now, that it was therefore actually better in the past. The lead as it was on March 12, 2007 was awful and seriously misleading - it simply identified conversion therapy with the ex-gay movement, even though there is no agreement among sources that they are the same thing. The criteria for Good Articles have changed since this article was last deemed Good. See Malleus Fatuorum's comments about that on his user talk page; the article has never met the current Good Article criteria. Born Gay (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic about Fromm & Berne etc., the point is that whole History section represents WP:Undue, especially as the reasoning that places most of the content in there is based on an indirect quote about Freud - and yet direct contemporary quotes from sources discussing conversion therapy and its religious connections are excluded. Mish (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have been being sarcastic, but I gave you a serious answer - I don't see any point to mentioning Fromm or Berne here. The reasoning you refer to is about, I suppose, the American Psychiatric Association's position statement. It indicates clearly that Freud and other early figures were involved in conversion therapy and can be mentioned here. If you have anything you want to add about conversion therapy's connections with religion, then add it by all means, if it is compatible with policies on neutrality, verification, and due weight. Born Gay (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest way to deal with this would be a subsection under Conversion therapy#Contemporary theories and techniques expanded to include 'issues' which pulls together the references here about the religious connections, and expands with comments from recent papers about that, to show how this came about, and show how that situation developed, and the relationship with medical approaches. It could go there, or under Conversion therapy#Medical, scientific and legal views in the U.S. - although while this issue does seem to be more of an issue in the US, it has implications outside the US. Or it could simply be a small section for that purpose. It's important to balance the two aspects - that people with a religious perspective took an existing frame, and developed it in a particular way, which then became used by some therapists and promoted by some religious groups - and clearly illustrate the the way this developed; when the details are scattered amidst a wealth of detail, it is not apparent, and this aspect appears to be almost insignificant. It clearly isn't, because of the attention it has received by the likes of Dreschet, Spizer et al., and the APA, as well as the press. Mish (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be changed in one of the ways you suggest; it depends exactly what you have in mind. More specific proposals would be easier to respond to. Born Gay (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, there's no rush. I will look at pulling something together for the religious aspects and Bergler post-1938 work in the USA in a week's time, as I am tied up till then. Mish (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Trends in Psychoanalysis

I removed a paragraph about trends within psychoanalysis from the American history section. Like I said in the edit summary, the information is helpful, but it isn't specifically about developments in America, and it was misleading of me to have placed it there. When I put it there, I thought that it should go somewhere in the article, but I'm no longer sure that there is any good place for it here. Mish has relocated the information at the start of the History section. I can understand the reason for this, but I honestly don't think that it was the right move.

The information is lacking a heading, and it's just not clear why the History section should start with an untitled section about developments within psychoanalysis in the early 20th century (this places it before Krafft-Ebing and the late 19th century stuff; logically, it should come after them if it were to go here at all). If there's no good, logical place for the information, that's a sign it doesn't belong in the article. I think this information might be better for the Homosexuality and psychology article, which is languishing and doesn't have much content. Born Gay (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious point there is that this is about psychoanalysis, not psychology. If this should go in that article, then why not the rest of the section that covers psychoanalysis (if that article is lacking, it could be a good solution - although the pedant in me would argue it should be re-named psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis and homosexuality) and leave this portion of summary here? It was inserted there as part of an introduction to a rather long history section, which could be supplemented by some of the material that doesn't need to be in the lede. I have no objection to moving it up into an explicit 'introduction' section - I think it would be useful as part of an overview for people who are interested in the background to conversion therapy, but who do not want to read an exhaustive history of such approaches. Mish (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sub-section title for that. I've consolidated one contributor under Hungary, as he was Hungarian. It was dodgy time, and now these countries have achieved full independence from a variety of imperial arrangements that went on for over a century, it seems fitting to treat them as the separate entities they now are, and once were before. Mish (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to say that psychoanalysis isn't a school of psychology. Freud said himself at one stage that psychoanalysis was a form of psychology, among other things. In any event, psychoanalysis is clearly relevant to psychological about homosexuality, so it shouldn't make that much difference whether it counts as a form of psychology or not. Giving the Homosexuality and psychology article such a long title doesn't seem like a good idea. You are right that most of the material about psychoanalysis and homosexuality here would belong just as well in Homosexuality and psychology, but it would not be a good idea to remove it from this article. Some overlap between the articles is inevitable, and not necessarily harmful. I still think that the trends in psychoanalysis material should probably be removed from the article altogether, and worked into Homosexuality and psychology. It would difficult to keep it within this article in a way that makes sense; it certainly doesn't work as an introduction to the History section as a whole. As for separating Hungary into a different section, that is ahistorical; Hungary wasn't independent when Ferenczi wrote the stuff that the section on him covers. I also don't think it's appropriate to have a whole section on "Hungary" that actually consists of material on just one writer. Born Gay (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you would be better moving the whole lot there, with a link in the article to that article - it is too voluminous for this article anyway, and that way it could be justifiably maintained without losing what I do agree is very good material. Then the precis here would serve to inform the discussion about the contemporary issues, with a link to more detailed information. Maybe you are right about that, but from what I know about the three disciplines they are different. Perhaps 'Homosexuality and psychological approaches', or 'Psychological approaches to homosexuality'?
• Putting a Hungarian in Austria is just odd. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not Austria, which consisted primarily of Austria and Hungary as dual monarchies with separate legislatures etc., and it lasted until 1918 - he was publishing up until 1933, and most of the work covered in citations post-dates 1918, so a significant part of his work was in Hungary per se. If you look at Sándor Ferenczi, it says Hungary. Hungary remained a nation state regardless of the joint sovereignty arrangement with Austria. To do this you would need to rename that section Austria-Hungary, which would be even odder, because of the work cited that happened after 1918. I don't see how having only one item under Hungary is an issue - try finding another one.
• On the UK side, you might like to look into Hans Eysenck - he was carrying out aversion therapy at the Maudsley Hospital into the 1970's. The UK Gay Liberation Front disrupted one of his lectures in protest, and through that and other actions the Maudsley reviewed its practice and stopped doing it. Peter Tatchell discusses this briefly on his site [2], but there are other sources. Something else I can do when I have more time if you don't want to. Mish (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think we have to face the fact that there's inevitably going to be a lot of overlap between Homosexuality and psychology and Conversion therapy, if both of these articles are developed to a satisfactory condition. They will have a different focus and approach, but still will have to cover much of the same ground. Maybe the material about psychoanalysis in Conversion therapy could be abbreviated somewhat if Homosexuality and psychology were improved, but I'm not yet convinced that it should be, and we're not at that point yet.

• Austria and Austria-Hungary can be covered together for the purposes of this article, which is about conversion therapy rather than Austrian or Hungarian history. It's a pragmatic consideration more than anything else. There was a note in the Austria section that Ferenczi was writing when Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary, but you removed it. I can't see that that was a good idea. The material on Ferenczi is about papers written in 1909, 1912, and 1914. It strikes me as unfortunate to include some material about conversion therapy in Hungary (if any can be found) simply because there was one important early figure there, when that material otherwise wouldn't be relevant or important enough to include.

• Regarding the UK, yes, Eysenck is certainly one of the figures who should be mentioned. I don't have much material about him. Other things that should be covered are the work of Havelock Ellis, and the recommendations about treatment of homosexuality in the Wolfenden Report. I hope to summarise the latter at some point in the near future. Born Gay (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You were the one who said that having him in Hungary was wrong historically - when actually it is wrong to have him in Austria. Hungary was Hungary and Austria was Austria, even under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hungary never was Austria. But as I suggested, Asutro-Hungary is a problem as some of the papers were written after then (not so many once I moved Anna Freud to the UK, and Bergler to the USA, however). OK then, to avoid the implicit inaccuracy of locating a Hungarian in Austria, I will call it Austria AND Hungary. OK?
  • Bergler's homosexuality paper was published in English in the USA in 1938 - the year he left Austria and moved to the USA - unlike his earlier paper which was in German and published where he used to live. So, if you don't want these split up, it would be better to put them both in the USA, as his cited work on homosexuality was published there. Mish (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I can look at Ellis next week, along with any other stuff I said I'd look into.
  • I moved Anna Freud to the UK, as that is where she published on homosexuality Mish (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling the section Austria and Hungary doesn't seem very elegant to me, but I am content to leave it with that title for the moment, since I am tired of this silly issue. I don't see a problem with moving Anna Freud to the UK section, but Edmund Bergler definitely belongs in Austria, not in the US section. I am not aware that there's any proof that the 1938 paper mentioned in the article was published after he moved; it could have been before. The fact that it was published in English in the USA doesn't show that he couldn't have had it published there before he moved. Sources are needed if we want to be sure about this (otherwise it would be original research to say that 'After he moved to the USA, in 1938, Bergler published in English, “Preliminary Phases of the Masculine Beating Fantasy“'). I'm still unhappy with having a paragraph about developments in psychoanalysis as the introduction to the entire History section, and will delete it unless it can be properly integrated into the rest of the article, which I doubt it can be. Born Gay (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, a Hungarian might think saying a Hungarian was Austrian is silly.
• Looking at the sources, there is disagreement whether he arrived in New York in 1937 [3] or 1938, although they agree that he vacated his position as a psychoanalyst in in Vienna in 1937. It seems unreasonable to expect me to believe that given how he settled in the USA between 1937 and 1938, and how he previously published in German in German or Austrian publications, and how the 1938 paper was in English an a US based journal at a time when communication was not what it was today, that he published it in Austria. Common sense suggests it was published in the USA upon or after his arrival. Regardless of this, the fact that this was published in the USA and he published no work in Austria after 1937, the main impact of this paper would have been in the USA, not Austria; after 1937 Bergler had no influence in Austria - only in the USA. Mish (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have added a comment about the philosopher Popper's views of psychoanalysis. Popper was Viennese and active at the time both the Vienna circle and the Vienna school of psychoanalysis were active. He drew on his observations of Freud and his contemporaries in developing his critique of psychoanalysis in his books, and this serves as one of three archetypes of pseudoscience, alongside Marxism and astrology. It contests the value of psychoanalysis as a scientific approach. Mish (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea, why not merge all those who published in German in one section, leaving France, UK and the USA as they stand? That will resolve the issue about Ferenczi, as he published in German, as well as Bergler, as he published in English in the USA after 1938. Mish (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Popper's views on psychoanalysis are off-topic here, since they had nothing to do with conversion therapy, something that as far as I know he never wrote about. Criticisms of (or for that matter defenses of) psychoanalysis are not relevant here unless they are somehow necessary to explain conversion therapy. Born Gay (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lumping everything German into one big section is not a good idea in my opinion. There is too much German material, and it would make the section too long; wouldn't help article organization. Born Gay (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the section is, apart from Krafft-Ebing and one Hungarian, about the Viennese school of psychoanalysis approach to homosexuality as historical background to conversion therapy. Popper critiqued that school of psychoanalysis as non-scientific. If this school of psychoanalyis is significant in producing what is now called conversion therapy, it is important to note this. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You could prune and reduce the section as a German-speaking section. The whole section is too long for a historical background section anyway. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Popper's criticisms of psychoanalysis had nothing to do with homosexuality or conversion therapy, so it's not relevant. Re-organizing the article on the basis of language isn't something that seems necessary to me at the moment. Born Gay (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Mish, please do not add Original Research to this article (see WP:NOR). Everything has to be based on the article's sources; we need to correctly reflect what they say. The source regarding Bergler says that he was the most important psychoanalytic theorist of homosexuality in the 1950s, and that's all. It does not say that he was the most important theorist specifically in the United States. It does not matter whether the source was written by an American, or by a Martian, it is a reliable source and that's all the article has to go by regarding Bergler's importance at the moment. If there were other reliable sources that disputed that view, we could note both. Born Gay (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still some POV issues going on here

One of the criticisms of this article was its lack of international scope. That is not resolved by making out that issues that were primarily of significance in the USA are automatically of equal international significance. Bergler was an American phenomenon, and his importance there is not reflected here to such a great extent. Few people here have heard him before I explain about him. This also applies to NARTH. Like the APA, it is an national organisation - hence one is called 'American', the other 'National'. I do not need to justify this by sources - it just is. NARTH may have effects outside the USA, but that would have to be justified with sources to show that (not the other way around, positives can be proven or disproven - negatives don't work that way - the problematic claim needs to be supported, not the obvious fact). The paper that is sourced about NARTH is clearly about the US domestic situation, because only US organisations and situations are detailed (apart from a couple of odd refs about Neville Chamberlain for some reason that eludes me), as are all the contributors, credits, funding agents, etc. So, it is talking about a domestic situation relevant to the USA. Just because these things are significant in the USA, do not assume they are as significant elsewhere or played out in the same way. the UK source I quoted from the paper Drescher collaborated with is quite clear about where this connects with the UK - one religious group and no mention of NARTH. If you want this to have an international scope, then do so not by extrapolating American experience to the rest of the world, but by documenting what happens in the USA, and what happens elsewhere, and what applies to both. The APA, for example, may be relevant outside of the USA in some contexts, but (for example) in many countries ICD-10 is used rather than DSM-IV - including the UK. That is because the WHO is international in scope, while the APA is national. I need no source for that, because the clue is in the name - just like in NARTH. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your comments above reflect a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Please take a little more time to look at Wikipedia's policies, including Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and No Original Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Pretty well everything here does indeed have to be based upon sources. One of Wikipedia's rules is, our goal is verifiability, not truth. Born Gay (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also note related policies involving edit warring (which admittedly I have been doing also) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war, and the Three Revert Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule, which we have both almost breached. Breaching either of these policies can lead to blocking. So please let's discuss this on the talk page before reverting again, and consider other editors' views as well. Born Gay (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't respond well to threats, or being patronised, and I perceive both as bullying. Unfortunately neither work with me - I have resisted bullying too long, and am much to old and intelligent to be patronised. So, I am familiar with these policies, and I would refer you to WP:Common sense which suggests trying to exclude the obvious - that a US national organisation is either American or in the USA simply because one quote doesn't say that when it is all about the situation in the USA and the clue is in the name of the organisation - is silly and borders on | Dickishness. Granted, I am just as much so for persisting with it. Sure it is all supposed to be accurately sourced, but lots isn't and the sky doesn't fall on our heads; the fundamental priniciple is to improve Wikipedia and guidelines are to guide not dictate. I would discuss it here, but you don't seem to listen unless I make the change directly, so the only way to rectify certain things in the article seems to be to apply the changes directly in the hope that you get the point. Sometimes you do, sometimes I let your view pass, sometimes you don't. Still, I have found reliable source now, and to avoid synthesis by attaching to the existing sentence, I have expanded the sentence to reflect the view of the article - that NARTH is an American organisation which is connected with religious groups opposed to homosexuality. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies apply to everyone, and I am not threatening you by pointing them out. I am trying to save you trouble. Suggesting that policies, including that against original research, be ignored for whatever reason just won't do. It's not acceptable, least of all when the objective is to get an article to Good Article or Featured Article status, and that is my objective here. Regarding POV, that is what it's called when you add things that aren't based on reliable sources, not when you make the article accurately reflect them, which is what I've been trying to do. See WP:NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." It cannot make any sense to complain about POV problems when you've basically suggested that we should ignore policies like verifiability and no original research, which define what is and isn't POV here. Born Gay (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The information in the "Religion and reparative therapy" section was badly sourced and misleading. It said of critics of reparative therapy that, 'To support this they claim that Dr Nicolosi is a fundamentalist Catholic pretending to be a secular therapist, that most reparative therapists have a religious background, and that NARTH uses "cod psychology to justify Christian homophobia".' If you read the Guardian article that was used as a source, it's clear that those comments reflect the views only of Wayne Besen. There's no indication that they are the views of most critics of reparative therapy. Born Gay (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out to you several times that the connections to religion features substantively in many of the sources here - the APA, Drescher, Zucker, Spizer, and in some papers taking up between 20-40% of the substance of the source cited, yet you have refused to allow this to be reflected in this article. I have now cited two sources, both from a reliable British national newspaper which details the claims and facts about the connection to religion in some detail - clearly marked when they are claims and when they are verifiable facts. Your exclusion of this verifiable information from reliable sources and the undue weight in detailing the history of psychoanalysis and other treatments of homosexuality before the growth of the 'ex-gay' movement to such an extent suggests to me a serious neutrality problem and leaves the article unbalanced. Please leave the tag in place until you have properly addressed these issues - and remember, you do not own this article. If you wish this article to have international scope, then you need to reflect this - otherwise add 'in the USA' to the title, and relocate the UK and other countries in their own articles. In the UK this therapy is seen as a relatively new approach being exported primarily by NARTH and the ex-gay movement from the USA, and with strong religious connections. As reflected in the sources I have cited and you keep removing. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of your comment above is flat out wrong. I have never said that anything in the APA, Drescher, Zucker, or Spitzer that connects conversion therapy with religion should not be here, and have never removed any such material from the article. Actually, you haven't added anything about conversion therapy and religion based on those sources. Instead, you added some information from the Guardian newspaper, which was more about NARTH as an organisation that conversion therapy in general, and parts of which were poorly sourced and misleading, something which I tried to explain to you carefully but which you appear not to understand. That material clearly failed any test of verifiability and due weight, so I had to remove it (the information about NARTH was quite interesting, but it's appropriate for the article on NARTH, not this article, as I pointed out in my edit summary when I removed it, but you haven't responded to that either). It's odd that you would suggest that the article over-emphasises psychoanalysis, given that I've recently cut the section on Freud back considerably. Your complaint about that suggests that you consider conversion therapy and the ex-gay movement as being the same thing, although most sources do not say that, and some contradict it. I'll make the article a little clearer about that. Regarding the POV tag, I'm not going to remove that straight away, but I see no reason why it should remain there forever, simply because you disagree with the article's sources. That is not what a real POV problem looks like. Born Gay (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you refused to acknowledge that the substantial discussion in the sources on the relation between religion and conversion therapy cited were of any significance and admissible. I had suggested that I would take the time to go through these and extract the relevant information - but given your behaviour so far I am reluctant to waste my time on this, as you will probably find some excuse to delete it. There is nothing wrong with the Guardian as a source, and citing what is claimed or demonstrated in that source. I reflected what they reported without going into undue detail - which was all about the attempted introduction of conversion therapy into the UK - citing the ex-gay movement and NARTH. That is completely relevant to the topic, because that was clear in the title and the text of the source. You have no justification for excluding two reports from a UK national newspaper simply because they don't agree with your POV. I will not be bothering to add anything more to this article for now, because you use policies and guidelines as tools to prevent insertion of material you don't agree with. It is vexatious. I have no more time for it. I will continue to monitor this article because it is an exercise in misrepresentation of the topic which censors certain views expressed in legitimate sources. I am now of the opinion that it is so biased and way off topic that Wikipedia may be better off without it at all.

Pruning Freud doesn't really address the problem. I agree that there needs to be background on the forms of treatment and therapy that has informed this new construction of conversion therapy, but not that it warrants the level of detail where it takes up over 50% of the article. I do not think that conversion therapy and the ex-gay movement are the same thing. I agree with the claims described by the Guardian journalist, that its recent development is ideologically motivated. I also believe that like pasychoanalysis it is unscientific and on a par with alternative medicine and faith healing. You suggesting that the Guardian is not a verifiable source is stupid. Balance is not about saying some legitimate sources (i.e. major national newspapers and sections of papers already cited) should be excluded because the proponents of a fringe-theory say it is not like that. Balance, especially when dealing with fringe theories like this is not to make out it is not a fringe theory, but to allow for the mainstream opinion that it is a dubious form of treatment, and that it is a fringe theory which is generally promoted by religious groups and other social conservatives. By excluding opinions expressed in the mainstream, such as national newspapers, medical and academic papers, you are damaging the article and thereby Wikipedia. I just counted 10 pages in my browser that relate to the history before 1960, most of which concerns psychoanalysis; there are about 7 pages in my browser about contemporary issues, mostly about how it developed, studies about it, and various responses to it, and only 1 page that deals with contemporary treatment, which is actually about its proponents saying how good it is. I have yet to find a section that explains what conversion therapy is. You would expect that somewhere in the article that would feature substantially - as that is the purpose of Wikipedia, to inform - if I have missed it, maybe you could point me to where there is a description of what happens in contemporary conversion therapy and how it is supposed to work. Not saying 'oooh - we deal with their gender identity issues that result from childhood trauma' or whatever - what actually happens - that is what many will want to know. Instead this reads like a text-book, mainly because so much of it comes from a couple of text books. There is lots about how it works, and why some say it harms, but not about what it actually involves. Is this is a reflection of the sources? Do none give any details about the therapeutic process itself? That is a huge problem, and if nobody knows what happens that adds weight to its being a fringe theory, and we ought to ensure relevant guidelines about how we treat fringe theories are followed. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of your reply above is totally misleading. I never said that connections between conversion therapy and religion could not or should not be mentioned in the article, in fact I said they should be if that could be dealt with in a way that was in accord with policies like NPOV, verification, and due weight. I won't say anything more about that, though, since the record of those conversations is there for anyone to see, and it should be apparent that you're misrepresenting what I said. You also misrepresented what was in the Guardian (which I never said wasn't a reliable source, as you falsely claim). You presented Wayne Besen's views (eg, that 'Dr Nicolosi is a fundamentalist Catholic pretending to be a secular therapist, that most reparative therapists have a religious background, and that NARTH uses "cod psychology to justify Christian homophobia"') as being the views of critics of reparative therapy in general, which was inappropriate and utterly without justification. The details about NARTH's view of IslamOnline and vice versa would be worthwhile for the NARTH article, but not this one. That you have repeatedly ignored these these points and refused to respond does not help matters. The article does clearly say what conversion therapy is, in the lead and the terminology section. Most of your other comments don't warrant a response, including the now repeated and very personal incivility. Born Gay (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Incivility? pot - kettle - "kettle - black". Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The notice you added to the article was for, "When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies". Yet strangely enough, you don't feel a need to respect those policies, and have actually stated that openly several times, both on this talk page and in edit summaries. When I pointed out to you that one of the article's sources didn't support a claim you added to the article, you responded in an edit summary [4], "Probbaly written by an American. Can't have it both ways, either he was the most notable then, or he was the most important in the USA - not important here". In other words, you considered your opinion more important than what was in the reliable source, rejecting it because you happened to disagree with it. It is incoherent to complain that the article doesn't reflect content policies and simultaneously imply that you will disregard them when you see fit.

Furthermore, when you add a notice to an article disputing its neutrality, you are meant to discuss this issue on the talk page, yet you have thus far made no real effort to discuss the content issues in question. I've pointed out that there are fundamental problems with the material you added, but for whatever reason you have not responded to any of my objections to it, or offered a real explanation of why it should be here. The closest you came was when you commented [5] on Benjiboi's talk page, "It doesn't matter whose views they were", in response to my point that you ascribed views expressed only by Wayne Besen to critics of reparative therapy in general. It most emphatically does matter whose views they were. To suggest that opinions about a controversial issue expressed by one individual are held by a larger group of people, when there is no evidence they hold those opinions, is misleading and unacceptable. It would be unethical even if it were endorsed by Wikipedia policy, which it is not. Since you've failed to come up with any more acceptable argument, I'm inclined to remove the notice you added. As you appear not to accept Wikipedia policies, I can't think of any reason you could give me not to. I've started a new section about that. Born Gay (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)