Jump to content

Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

NARTH is NOT WP:RS

Ok, NARTH is not a reliable source. NARTH is a advocacy group with an agenda, and as such, by definition not a reliable source! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They are, like all SPS, reliable for what they themselves say. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they fail to back-up their claims with scientific evidence.--DVD-junkie | talk | 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


As much as they disgust me, my belief, from my (possibly limited) understanding of how Wikipedia works, is that they can still be used as references to indicate what they said. Inotherwords, sure, maybe (heh) their site cannot be used as references to general fact, etc; but it can be used to prove they "said" something. Ie: "NARTH claims ________" (cite to their site where they claim whatever). That is much different than using them in support of a statement of science or fact. It just proves they publicly made such a claim/statement/etc.


Additionally, wouldn't NOT including such a citation violate Wikipedia's rule about adding controversial information about extant organazations and living people without it being cited properly? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Who stuck "Citation Needed" tags in this? I'm removing them.

Hello all, Seems, probably in an effort to get controversial information removed, someone has stuck two citation needed tags in a single paragraph with five citations.

Excerpt of the paragraph:

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[1] Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.[citation needed] Indeed, such interventions are ethically suspect because they can be harmful to the psychological well-being of those who attempt them; clinical observations and self-reports indicate that many individuals who unsuccessfully attempt to change their sexual orientation experience considerable psychological distress.[citation needed] For these reasons, no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.[2][3][4]


As one can see, at least three of the citations cover the whole section of the paragraph that had the cite needed tags. I've thus removed those tags. Let me know if anyone has a problem with it, or if I have misinterpreted the content in the cites.


RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


I've removed two more cite needed tag - in the first, the sentence already had a citation. In the second, the citation was on the 2nd sentence of the paragraph. Methinks, either (assuming good faith) someone added citations and forgot to remove the tags, or (not assuming good faith) someone keeps adding citation needed tags to anything they don't like, hoping those sentences or paragraphs will be removed if citations are not added. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know who put those tags there. Everything is referenced immediately after statements by highly credible sources. Thus, I support removing those tags, since they should not been there. --Destinero (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of ex-gays in libraries

Hi y'all. I'm not really involved on this page, but I would like the regular editors to consider the censorship of ex-gay material in American public libraries and whether that should be included here somehow—looks meaty enough to be included in my opinion:

That should be a good start. Thank you. I'll likely leave this in the hands of y'all, especially since I have a possible WP:COI about libraries, as stated on my User page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the first link (I dont bother checking for news stories at Fox links), and it seems a very odd situation. The group in question wants to donate books which state things every major medical authority claims is nonsense and may actually cause harm to those dealing with their sexuality. The same books are based on discrimination and nasty rhetoric - yet they name their movement "True Tolerance"
I'm not sure where the heck that should go in the article. And while all the above may be my POV, it's largely also the established beliefs referenced in this and the related articles (with plenty of citations).
Are any of the other links better? Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 02:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, it seems sufficient RS coverage to document the fact that a controversy exists. One needn't take a position on the scientific underpinning of such books to document that certain folks want them included in a collection and others want them excluded. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens: I agree 100%. I literally meant I dont know where it should go... that's why I mentioned the citations over the controversial aspects. Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's another one. It has quotes from Judith Krug that may be directly relevant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's almost 2 months since I raised this issue and nothing much has happened. So, despite my COI, I may start adding things soon. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem I see is also including the reasons why there is such censorship, if such exists. Without that, the proposed section would not be balanced. Is it censorship? Is it a lack of interest in such books? Do the institutions in question have reasons for such? Is it intentional? Most libraries attempt to include books for which there is a demand for - if there's no demand, the books generally are not there (assuming the librarians and such are accurately doing their jobs in getting books their readers have interest in). A claim of censorship should be backed by a claim from those such a claim is being levied against. I'd prefer to see a indication from someone who makes such policy as opposed to by a person who has no such authority. But that's just my opinion. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that could be done. But it is very hard to find someone admitting they are censoring ex-gay material. Normally it's done more diplomatically, like by saying the publishers are small, or no trusted source has reviewed the books. The trusted sources, of course, are often branches of the same people blocking the book. So if/when I do add this, I'll will endeavor to find solid sources. I'm just not putting effort into it in the hopes others will do it first, due to my possible COI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Hmmm... perhaps what you can do is create a version of the proposed text in your userspace, and post a link to it here asking for assistance or comments? Then when it's complete, make the proposal for inclusion (and possibly even allow someone else to add it if a consensus is reached)? My personal feelings on the subject matter as a whole aside (which I wont discuss as I will endeavor to ensure they don't affect any contributions I may consider), I am all for any relevant information; complimentary/criticism/informational, as long as it's pertinent to the subject and written in the correct fashion.
My first suggestion would be to ditch the non-news source as a source it's happening (I'd use it to enforce/cite a claim that it's happening at most, but not to indicate it is happening) - simply because, especially on an article that seems contentious, there are sure to be people who will claim they are biased sources.
Then there is of course the other aspect in my earlier post that you brought up good points about. If the sources all go along those routes, then I'd think the section simply needs to be balanced showing such institutions claim they are not censoring anything and are instead... "diplomatic answer".
That should make it pretty easy and unbiased. Side A claims censorship, Side B claims not censoring and the books aren't there because (reason). Simple claim(cites), simple counter-claim(cites). Nothing that states they are being censored, and nothing that states (diplomatic reason). Just claim, counterclaim.
Anyway, those are my suggestions... :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstinence vs conversion therapy

From SOCE: "Most ex-gay groups focus on abstaining from homosexual relationships rather than a complete sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual." You wouldn't arrive at that after reading this article. The article is WP:UNDUE toward psycho therapies, in particilar conversion therapy. Lionel (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we need to find which is accurate - or if both are in a non-exclusive fashion that makes the use of the word "most" incorrect. Claims from some of the groups support SOCE, while claims from some group leaders who've "gone straight" through their methods, deem otherwise. Somewhere there's a big inconsistency that makes me think neither portrayal (SOCE or this article) adequately addresses reality. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. That line in the other article has four source, three of them primary. I looked that the only secondary source, an article in The Times, but it doesn't use the word "abstinence".[1] Am I missing it?   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100% with that. What I'm saying isn't disputing the information on either page. Instead, what I am saying is this article (and possibly the other? I've barely even browsed it, so I dont know) may need to more accurately portray things. There are enough cites that claim abstinence is the main tool, or conversion therapy is, or conversion therapy with abstinence in "times of weakness" is, or a bunch of other things. I suspect that there is no hard and fast data to indicate which is more prevalent, and the article should be balanced to support claims of each based on the RS's available. Inotherwords, regardless of the reality that we cannot prove, each claim should be given due, properly sourced, weight - which is the best I suspect we can do. Hope that explains what I was trying to say. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

BRD violation

A WP:BRD violation may have occurred as it appears an editor is edit warring. I am writing this here per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. The diffs are these:

  • (cur | prev) 17:08, 10 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (54,412 bytes) (you are once again mistaken about policy. look up UNDUE, FRINGE and RSMED; the majority view can be stated as fact) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 16:57, 10 December 2010 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk | contribs) (54,994 bytes) ('Undid revision 401638786 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) - rv - blanket stmts like "X is not a RS" violate WP:RS context req'mt') (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 16:51, 10 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (54,412 bytes) (narth is not a reliable source; please discuss this before making more changes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 16:39, 10 December 2010 JohnnyLopez 3 (talk | contribs) (54,994 bytes) (Made some edits to add balance.) (undo)

The second removal of a source constitutes the edit war. Please consider what action should be taken.

See how the edit warrior removed a ref saying, "narth is not a reliable source", I responded by saying, "blanket stmts like 'X is not a RS' violate WP:RS context req'mt", then the edit warrior removed the ref again, ignoring the need to consider a ref in context as required by WP:RS. He then violated WP:AGF saying, "you are once again mistaken about policy" and followed up with switching reasons for removal of the ref, "look up UNDUE, FRINGE and RSMED". That appears to be edit warring to me, it also appears uncivil, and it appears to violate BRD, made all the worse by his telling the editor who added the ref, "please discuss this before making more changes."

Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In my 16:51 edit, I asked that you "please discuss this before making more changes". Unfortunately, you didn't do that, so I had to revert you. Fortunately, it had the desired effect of getting you to come here and talk about it. Unfortunately, you're busy violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, while completely ignoring the point. If you have a point regarding content, please share it. Otherwise, I'm going to hat this section and move on. Dylan Flaherty 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You talking to me? The 16:51 edit you mentioned was a message to another editor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
LAEC, if the BRD cycle was followed, nobody would have put the NARTH stuff back in but discussed it here. BTW, NARTH is utterly not WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. In this case it was the guy's first edit. There's a rule somewhere about jumping down a newbie's throat. Besides, I was not aware of any existing Narth exclusion rule as I am not a regular editor on this page. Also, Narth may be a RS--depending on the context, per WP:RS. Yes, that context may be very limited, but it is appropriate in some places. It is never appropriate to automatically writeoff any source without first considering context. That was the problem in this case. Further, even if Narth is not reliable in the context in question, that is not an excuse for the behaviour demonstrated above. Let an editor get away with edit warring and it will just continue elsewhere. No one let me get away with it and I have no further edit wars now and work cooperatively with others, even when provoked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it is someones first edit or not. The BRD cycle still applies. As for NARTH, NARTH is only reliable for what it says about itself. So yes, you are right, they are WP:RS for some things. All the other stuff they claim have been soundly disproven. Reverting the bold edit was the R in the BRD. That is no edit warring. (Oh, btw, this is a topic I know a lot about, NARTH is about as reliable on this topic as the flat earth society on the shape of the earth.)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
He only made two edits, and I saw the other one first. Both were made without discussion and clearly pushed POV.
No edit warring has occurred, but I'm going to remind you to adhere closely to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As for WP:BRD, it's a fine idea and I generally stick to it, but it's not intended to be an enforceable rule. Trust me on this one: I learned the hard way. Dylan Flaherty 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Dylan Flaherty, I do not understand your comment. You are the one whose actions have been called into question per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? Dylan Flaherty 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't report BRD violations on the article's talk page. You discuss the content on the talk page. If you have issues with a user's edits, then perhaps talk to them on their talk page, or seek options at Wikipedia:DR. Westbender (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR says, "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
"Discuss the matter on the article's talk page" means discussing the content that is disputed. It does not mean cut/pasting edit histories, detailing grievances, and asking for action to be taken against an editor. There are noticeboards and dispute resolution options for that. This page is for discussing content, not editors. Please...... Westbender (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

youtube

Am attempting to AGF however an editor repeatedly adding content sourced to youtube in violation of WP:RSEX. Because the subject is a living person 3RR is not applicable per WP:BLP. Lionel (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable persons

Is there a rationale as to why persons not notable to have their own articles are included in the lists the way they are? In other article categories, ie. schools, only persons of sufficient notability should be included in lists. WMO 01:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List entries do not necessarily require their own article. It is enough they they can be shown to be a member of the list by way of reliable sourcing. Also, notability only applies to articles, not content. Most of the entries are sourced and pass WP:STAND. Lionel (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The list violates this:
"Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus the list."
It should probably be shortened to only those notable to have their own articles. W:MO 02:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, you do realize that WP:STAND doesn't apply to lists included in other articles on notable topics, right? In general, your assertion that lists should only include notable entries is at odds with WP:NNC, which notes that standalone lists (which this is not) have an option to restrict membership to notable entries. If there's any good reason to trim/delete items from the list, BLP is probably the most relevant. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Should've cited WP:Source list. Lionel (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I apparently disagree on almost everything from the above user but he's correct that this article's list is fine. When the history of these movements is better laid out most, if not all will be a part of the narrative, Perhaps as a compromise we can put it all in date order by group rather than by last name.STL1989 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey STL, great to finally be on the same side of an issue for a change. I think I'll try to enjoy this while it lasts. Lionel (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article name change

I believe the name of this article should be changed to "Ex-gay movement". Although the article gives backdrop about the meaning of the term "ex-gay", most of the article focuses on the various organizations that comprise the movement. Even the the People section is not about people who are ex-gay but about people associated with the movement (obviously, there is a lot of overlap).

I'll give other editors some time to comment on my proposal before taking any action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


History

  • Ex-gay organizations began in the U.S. with Evangelical Christians, but have since spread to include Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious groups in several countries.

we don't have a source for this sentence in the intro, and I don't see it repeated in the body of the text. It's my understanding that efforts to cure homosexual urges were an early part of psychiatry, at a time when the religious communities' response was simply to repent. It's possible that the organizations, per se, started with evangelical groups, but this article isn't just about ex-gay organizations. Maybe it'd be better to change the sentence to something without the chronological claims, something like, "In addition to ex-gay organizations started by Evangelical Christians in the U.S., there are also groups founded by Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious groups in several countries." Any objections to that change?   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If we are moving it to "Ex-gay movement", then sticking with organizations makes sense, but I'm concerned about another aspect of that sentence, in that it makes it sound like there are groups of those various denominations in other countries, which the article doesn't have real support for each of those. Though Evergreen International may have "International" in their name, they are a US-based organization. JONAH may refer people to therapists in Israel, but they are again a US-based organization.
But yeah, if you read the body text, you'll see the claim that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was the first to start such counseling as a group emphasis; while that wasn't the sole reason for existence of the group, we don't have a definition of "ex-gay group" that excludes them, and they are not Evangelical Christian. -- --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gay → Ex-gay movement — See discussion above for rationale and no opposition. I tried to do the move myself, but there is an existing redirect page called Ex-gay movement that redirects to the current Ex-gay article. I then got hopelessly lost in the instructions on how to fix that, or if I could even fix it, and figured it was easier just to ask for help. At the end of the process, the current ex-gay article should be renamed to ex-gay movement, and there should be a redirect called ex-gay to ex-gay movement, essentially a swap. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead language

The lead sentence says: "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that support people in changing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation ..." It has used the phrase "support people" at least to as far back as April 2010 (I didn't keep going backwards after that). Another editor, Arthur Smart, wants to change the sentence to read: "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that encourage people to try to change their ego-dystonic sexual orientation ..." I reverted (now twice) because "encourager people to try" is weasely. Arthur appears to think that somehow the word "support" means that the movement will succeed or that they are guaranteeing the change, or that support is vague, i.e., what kind of support. I think it's pretty clear that the movement wants to change gay people's thinking and behavior and wants to support them in their efforts to make those changes. Any feelings about this little tiff?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think both wordings are problematic, actually. "Encourage people to" suggests that they reach out to people to make the change, which is not how they self-depict (which is not to say that it's not what they do, but we would need source to indicate that they make people want to change, rather than to help people who already want to change.) "Support people in changing" does suggest success, which may be their self-depiction, but is problematic for that. "support people seeking to change" would be better. I'd also change "egodystonic sexual orientation" with "egodystonic homosexuality", as there has been no source I've seen indicating that the movement addressed egodystonic heterosexuality. And "change" is actually a tricky word here, since they seem willing to settle for making you a non-practicing homosexual if they cannot achieve non-homosexual, so "seeking to address" may be better still. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The best way to word it would be to find a source that supports a particular wording, but I'm not sure that the different groups are monolithic enough to agree on one wording. Of the choices you mention, the seeking phrase is, in my view, again too weasely. I don't agree that changing implies success. The word support makes it clear that the groups are helping, not guaranteeing. As for changing sexual orientation to homosexuality, I'm against that because I think the movements probably include bisexuals, not just gay people. As for your comment about the movement settling for changing behavior rather than orientation, I think that's covered sufficiently in the remainder of the sentence - the part we are talking about is only the first clause.
So, just in case it's unclear, I'm still in favor of leaving it as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No, there's nothing weaselly about indicating that they are supporting those who are trying, not just those who are succeeding. Change is change, it is (contextually) "success". And when addressing a bisexual, its the homosexual aspects that they are seeking to change - these folks show no sign of trying to eliminate the straightness. And that first clause sets up the whole rest of the sentence; it's all "and"ed together. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree with all of your points. The word support clarifies that the change isn't guaranteed, the movement is just helping. Bisexual is an orientation, even if the focus is on eliminating the homosexual aspect. Finally, the anding of the sentence doesn't change (sorry) my analysis. In any event, the sentence suffers from lack of parallelism at the moment anyway. The entire sentence is: "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that support people in changing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation, refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, develop heterosexual attractions, and possibly enter into an opposite-sex relationship." It should read, gramatically, "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that support people in changing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation, refraining from pursuing same-sex relationships, developing heterosexual attractions, and possibly entering into an opposite-sex relationship." As an aside, I'd leave out the word "possibly" at the end. In any event, the idea is that the phrase "support people in" applies to each four clauses that succeed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"The word support clarifies that the change isn't guaranteed". No, it doesn't. You may choose to read that into it, but one can support many things that actually exist. "Bisexual is an orientation, even if the focus is on eliminating the homosexual aspect" -- since we'd be eliminating the term "orientation", that's not a problem - not that it's much of a problem to being with when discussion ex-gay. I can show you plenty of sign that they support those wishing to change their ego-dystonic homosexuality; if you cannot show any sign that they support changing ego-dystonic heterosexuality, then there is no reason why that false claim should be in the opening sentence. Are they offering support for people entering into mixed-sex relationships if they don't have some homosexual conflict? Not in any particular way that I see; the whole rest of the sentence seems quite predicated on that egodystonia clause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you propose a wording for the entire sentence, or multiple sentences to replace the one?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The way bbb23 insists on wording the opening sentence seems to favor the ex-gay movement. I moved a lede sentence criticizing the movement so that the lede would seem more balanced within its first two sentences. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me the leaping inferences that some editors make about people's motives or agendas. Yours fits right in at the top (bottom?) of the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Please spare us the insults, but instead WP:AGF. You repeatedly reverted my good faith attempts to improve the honesty of the lede sentence (and it is a lede sentence, not a lead sentence, as most people in the newspaper business well know). Changing sexual orientation is a fool's proposition. Organizations can't "support people in changing" their sexual orientation any more than they can support a dog to turn into a cat. The best they can do is encourage people to "try to" change their sexual orientation. You insist that "try to" are weasel words. I say they made the lede a little more truthful and less biased in favor of such ex-gay organizations. To say they support people in actually changing sexual orientation gives them too much credit. You claim the sentence has been written that way for a long time. Maybe yes, but for an article entitled "Ex-gay", not "Ex-gay movement". "Ex-gay" is a hypothetical with not a single absolutely proven example. The "Ex-gay movement" is very real and very dangerous. They not only fail in their attempts to convert gays to straights, but they ultimately encourage suicide when the attempts ultimately fail. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 13:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities, in attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a mixed-sex relationship. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for proposing a wording. My comments: (1) what's the support for the word "conflicted"? won't the movement support anyone who wants to change, even if they are dyed-in-the-wool gays? (2) I can't follow the grammar/meaning after the first comma - what does "in attempts" modify or continue? (3) I think opposite-sex is more common than and preferable to mixed-sex (sounds like an orgy).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Nat, that looks great and I totally favor your proposed wording. Bbb23, "conflicted" is at the heart of "ego-dystonic," but has the advantage of not needed a dictionary to understand. I say let's go with Nat's wording. Thanks! --Art Smart Chart/Heart 13:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it- and I confess to having never heard of the term egodystonic before this article - Wikipedia says the word means essentially unconflicted. And I read the current sentence in the article to use the word to differentiate one's orientation as an identity from one's orientation as practiced. I do agree that if we can use a simpler word, that would be better. I'd like to hear Nat's reaction to my comments. Depending, I may then propose my own language.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you went to the page for egodystonic and read the first definition... missing that the term forwards to a page covering two words, and you were reading the definition for the other one. Egodystonic does mean conflicted, such as the conflict between wanting same-sex activity and not wanting to want same-sex activity. The comma after "activities" is what some call a "comma of convenience", merely a pause after a portion of a large clause to make it clear where a break is, but I can see where you might think that would confuse the following list structure. "Attempts" modifies all of the following "to"s. "Opposite-sex" is problematic but common structure (it both implies that sexes oppose each other and is unclear what the reference point for "opposite" is), so I'd prefer "heterosexual" or "mixed-sex". --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nat, you're absolutely right about the egodystonic stuff - my dyslexia. Opposite sex, though, really is the accepted term, particulary in the discussion of sexual relationships. See homosexuality and heterosexuality. I also googled both terms: opposite sex gets a little over 9M hits, whereas mixed sex gets about 450,000, and most of them are about things like mixed sex education, coed schooling, etc. Here's my suggested wording:

The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who want to change their same-sex attraction or activities, refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, eliminate same-sex desires, develop opposite-sex desires, or enter into an opposite sex relationship.

Each clause continues after the phrase "want to". In my view much of it is redundant, or at least overlapping, but I suppose I can live with that. For example, you could just stop the sentence after the word "activities", and it pretty much sums up the movement's goals.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of people who aren't in the ex-gay movement want to support people who want to change their sexuality - they just want to support them toward being more accepting of their desires, rather than support them in attempts to change their desire or to not act on their desire. Plus, if each phrase continues after "want to" - no, the ex-gay movement is not addressing those who want to enter into a mixed-sex relationship unless there is some conflict toward them doing so; otherwise, chemistry.com falls under "ex-gay movement". Do you have any problem with the term "heterosexual" instead of "mixed-sex"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have some support that the movements only want to work with people who are "conflicted"? I started looking at the websites of the various North American ex-gay organizations, and it's pretty hard to generalize about them - they all seem to have different goals. As for heterosexual, it's preferable to mixed-sex, but then, for the sake of consistency, we'd have to change all the same-sex to homosexual, which I'm not crazy about. What do you have against opposite sex? Do you disagree that it's the more common term? I can't find any support for the term mixed-sex in terms of sexual attraction and relationships.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The language of the ex-gay movement is all about the conflict, about those who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction, about wanting to overcome their desires. "People are in conflict with themselves, so they live dual lives. The ex-gay movement gives an opportunity for the individual to have support and fellowship as they endeavor to live with integrity to their own beliefs." "Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict" "OneByOne's purpose is to support gays and lesbians who are "struggling with sexual brokenness" and "are in conflict with their sexuality."" The ex-gay push, as presented by the ex-gay folks, is about people who want to not want what they want - that is conflict. They're not about being a dating service for already straight folks, which is what you're left with if you take out the part about the conflict. As for "opposite sex", beyond that curious base formation that the sexes are in opposition (I know I'm not opposed to women; I rather like 'em!), there's a difference between using the formulation in reference to a given person ("Janey is attracted to members of the opposite sex", it is the sex that is opposite Janey's sex) than to a relationship ("the couple down the street has an opposite-sex relationship" - the opposite of whom?) That's different from the construction of the term "same-sex relationship", where the sex is the same throughout; one cannot say that the sex is "opposite" throughout a relationship. But I have not problem with having both "same-sex" and "heterosexual" in a sentence. "Same-sex relationship" gets about 4 times the ghits of "homosexual relationship"; "heterosexual relationship" gets about 4 times the ghits of "opposite-sex relationship", so in both cases that would be the more common term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, but I'm not convinced. However, I am a bit worn out and don't have much new to say. So, here is a proposed wording that eliminates the conflicted phrase, which I think goes further than we need to and is a bit editorializing/OR. I am giving in on the terms you want:

The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you would try to avoid including who these folks are trying to "support". The claim that it's OR is false, I just provided you with some references, which makes it far more referenced than anything in your attempt. ("People? How do we know it's just for people? Where's your source that they don't support bears and trees trying to avoid same-sex attraction.") Your version stripped of that qualifies chemistry.com and Russian Bride services as part of the ex-gay movement, because they support people in attempts to enter into a heterosexual relationship. -Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Still not in agreement but will concede anyway:

The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship.

Other than a word addition (their) and a punctuation change (minus a comma), I believe that gives you everything you wanted. And, just to be clear, I don't mean that snidely.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That would be fine with me. Art? Anyone else? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
And in it has been put. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reordering lead

I wanted to wait until we'd worked out the opening of the lead before addressing the order. I don't think the order now flows well. Generally, I think terms should be defined up front, so I'd like to put the term "ex-gay" after the description of the ex-gay movement itself and moved one sentence about ex-gays into the ex-gay paragraph. Also, I think the paragraph about the organizations in the movement belongs with the opening because the organizations are the movement. So, here is the proposed new wording (leaving out references and wikilinks). I haven't changed anything but the order:

The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship. Ex-gay organizations began in the U.S. with Evangelical Christians, but have since spread to include Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious groups in several countries.

"Ex-gay" is a term used to describe persons who were once considered to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who no longer assert that identity. When the term was introduced to professional literature in 1980, E. Mansell Pattison defined it as describing a person who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation." Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, has distanced himself from the term's usage, because he believes "We are all so much more than our sexual expressions." Ex-gays are considered a protected class in Washington DC after a court order.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.

I'm tempted but will resist second-guessing how editors will respond to this proposal. Instead, I'll just wait for the comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to do a full look at this at the moment, but if you look back a couple of talk headers to the one marked "History", you'll find that the sentence you've moved into second place is one that there is recent concern about it's accuracy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that's an issue, but with or without that sentence (or some rewording of it), what do you think of the proposed order?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm under the weather, having trouble concentrating, can't give this the thought it deserves, probably for a couple days. i encourage others to do so. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope you feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm back, at least mostly. Launching in: in terms of flow, even if it wasn't for the accuracy problems, I don't think what you've placed at the second sentence should go there. I think what is now the second paragraph gets more to the point of explaining what we're talking about, rather than some of the vagaries of the histories of the organizational side of the movement. The E. Mansell Pattison sentence needs some reworking to match source, but the placement is fine. The last two sentences in that paragraph should probably be cut; the Chambers sentence is his talking about himself, which might have a place in a full discussions of terminology but doesn't rise to the level that makes it vital stuff for the intro. The Washington DC sentence deals with one relatively small jurisdiction (in terms of the world scope of this) and doesn't give a sense of how that is relevant to or compares to the larger picture (if there were, say, a lot of relevant cases in other jurisdictions where discriminating against professed ex-gays were ruled as legal, that would be a different matter.) So my suggestion is to kill the last sentence of the first 'graf, and the last two sentences of the second 'graf, and merge 'em into one paragraph.
With the third paragraph, I'd kill the first three words, especially since it's not up against any historical discussion. "There is" just mean that we're describing a current situation, and "now" just means that we're describing a current situation, and then we make a statement in the present tense, which means we're describing a current situation. Can kill a few redundant words further in that sentence, to: A large body of research indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. That should leave us with a leaner but, I think, useful intro. (I like an intro that one can read and - while not feeling like there's nothing left to learn - feel like one has a good grasp on what was said there without further reading.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I agree with everything you've said (ain't that remarkable?). Does this wording conform to your thoughts:

The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship. "Ex-gay" is a term used to describe persons who were once considered to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who no longer assert that identity. When the term was introduced to professional literature in 1980, E. Mansell Pattison defined it as describing a person who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation."

A large body of research evidence indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.

Only thing I wasn't sure about was whether the last sentence should be in its own paragraph, but because it provides some counterweight, making it a little more prominent is probably good.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear that you concur. I think the one point I miscommunicated was that I was only talking of shortening the first sentence of the final paragraph, not eliminating the second. I think, given its presence in the article, it should be made clear that there is some objection to the movement's goal (the first sentence of the paragraph establishes reason for an objection, but the second establishes that there are counter-movement forces.) I'll work on the Pattison line later; the corrections it calls for are not anything that the current discussion hinges on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no problem. The elimination of the second sentence in the final paragraph was inadvertent. Will you make the changes, or do you want me to do them? Do we want to wait to see if anyone else wants to offer an opinion?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd say give it a day to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts section

Shouldn't the "Sexual orientation change efforts" section describe said efforts before it criticizes them? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of these problems in all sorts of similar articles... they attract all sorts of material which properly belongs in Homosexuality and psychology, Homosexuality and Christianity, or a similar overview article. It's well-intentioned WP:COATRACK, under the thought that we can't let a fringe view seem to be mainstream. However, mentioning and linking to a particular view isn't advocacy, and thus yes, you're correct: in order to stay NPOV, criticism of a view or practice should only be present to counter positive exposition of that view or practice. But fighting COATRACK with COATRACK leads to bloated articles, so I recommend that issues just be wikilinked to the big, controversy articles to avoid inconsistent-quality duplication of summaries of controversies in every related article. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Garbage about Camille Paglia

Recently somebody added Camille Paglia to the list of "people associated with the ex-gay movement." This is outrageous, and it made my blood boil when I saw it. Paglia is not associated with the ex-gay movement - she's not, that is, actually a member or a supporter of any ex-gay group, hasn't tried to change her sexual orientation to straight, and isn't working as a therapist trying to change people's sexual orientations from gay to straight. What Paglia has done is to express an OPINION about the ex-gay issue - namely, that gays can try to change and go straight if that's what they really, really want to do. The difference between expressing an OPINION like that and actually being "associated with the ex-gay movement" in the sense of being a member/supporter of an ex-gay ministry is a fundamental one, and it's propaganda to blur the line. If every person who ever expressed an opinion like that about the ex-gay issue were added to the list, it would become very long, and distort its meaning completely. I'm not going to remove Paglia from the list myself, because I suspect that if I do some person with too much time on his or her hands is immediately going to find some ridiculous reason for re-adding her, but there's no doubt at all that this garbage about her has to be removed - it's a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies about material on living people, and if I were Paglia, I'd be sending in my OTRS complaint about it now. Viramag (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Andrew Sullivan has at times expressed the OPINION that gays should be allowed to try to go straight if they really want to (look it up - it's in his book Love Undetectable), but he isn't on the list. I wonder why not - after all, he'd be "associated with the ex-gay movement" too if you redefine terms so that Paglia is "associated" with it just because of something she wrote. Viramag (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. She is a prominent social critic and her addition to the the "People associated with the ex-gay movement" is both well sourced and appropriate. If the section said "Proponents of the ex-gay movement," then her name should not be listed and you would be correct.  M3I5K7E  03:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That is garbage. Paglia is not a "person associated with the ex-gay movement", and the source doesn't say that she is. It says that she thinks gays who want to change and go straight should be free to try and do that if they want to. Paglia is herself an open lesbian and a homosexual, and doesn't seem to have any interest in changing her sexual orientation. She is also an atheist and a supporter of gay rights, which places her in fundamental opposition to the ex-gay movement on issues of key importance. To equate her expressing the opinion that gays should be allowed to change if they really want to, which is really a very moderate and the middle of the road view, with her being "associated" with a religious movement that holds that homosexuality is a sin and no one should be gay, is outrageous and a serious BLP violation. It's a disgrace that Paglia wasn't removed from the list immediately. Viramag (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Placing Paglia on this list is roughly the equivalent of placing a man whose only connection with communism was that he once wrote an essay suggesting that maybe, purely in theory, communism could have had some good aspects to it, on a "List of radical communist militants." If anyone did that, it would (hopefully) be immediately recognized as a serious BLP violation; this business about Paglia is exactly the same kind of distortion, except that apparently it's seen as somehow acceptable here. (Oh, and the distinction between being "associated with the ex-gay movement" and "proponent of the ex-gay movement" is just sophistry. If you put Paglia on the same list as religious people who think that homosexuality is a sin and that no one should be gay, the natural implication is that she holds essentially the same kind of views as them, and it's a matter of public record that she doesn't.) Viramag (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about Sullivan, who has expressed views generally similar to Paglia's on the ex-gay issue. Would you include him here or not? Keeping Paglia on the list could be viewed as a precedent for including Sullivan, so the question does need an answer. Viramag (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In Vamps Paglia does seem to expouse sentiments compatible with the ex-gay movement. Her inclusion is appropriate. If you think Sullivan should also be included, let's see some references and we'll discuss it. – Lionel (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The quote cited does not associate her with the ex-gay movement, does not even mention the "movement". You may think that what she has to say may put her in line with what you think the movement thinks, but it is not our job to associate her. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
For an historical perspective, remember that the name of this article was changed to include "movement" earlier this year. Perhaps this indicates that it's time to change it back? Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not clear how that would have an impact on this particular question. Would we then be saying that Paglia is an ex-gay, or associates with ex-gays? I don't think we ought be listing everyone who once said something about the possibility of transition from homosexuality. We shouldn't be redesigning the article to find a reason to include her. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of using the vague phrase, "associated with", we could reword what we say about Paglia. Why not summarize or quote her opinion: i.e., that gays can try to change and go straight if that's what they really, really want to do.

We could compare this to the cult brainwashing scare of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Several religious and scientific figures expressed the opinion that "brainwashing" (aka mind control) is not a scientific concept and that "deprogramming" therefore has no scientific or ethical basis. These figures would not have wanted to be "associated with" any of the new religions or "cults". --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps some of the participants in this discussion need reminding that the list Paglia is on isn't "People with a handful of views the ex-gay movement might agree with but who otherwise disagree about fundamental issues." It's "People associated with the ex-gay movement." Including Paglia implies that she is part of, a participant in, or an active supporter of the ex-gay movement, but she has never identified herself that way, and no reliable source does either. That makes including her original research, as NatGertler says; because of the contentious nature of the ex-gay movement, including her here is a BLP violation too. Enough debate. It's time to simply remove her from the article. Her relevance to the ex-gay movement is at best peripheral, and it's a serious distortion to include here her as though she were part of it. Viramag (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Lionelt's comments about Sullivan, let me say that I wasn't trying to argue that Sullivan should be included, only that he could be included by the same kind of logic (or rather illogic) that Paglia has been included here. You can look up his books for yourself if you want to see what he thinks; I'm definitely not going to provide quotes from them if that would encourage someone to add him to a list of ex-gay movement supporters. Viramag (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead creep

As I've said on this and other articles before, this is not Homosexuality and psychology, and detailed explanations of why the APA believes what it does do not belong in this article, but in that one. Let's keep the lead focused on this particular set of folks, and not on the APA or anything else that would amount to a WP:COATRACK. We don't need to include the discussion in multiple articles, we need to make sure it's adequately covered once and wikilink to that--else, every article tells a slightly different story and risks bias creeping in. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, lets see, I made the following changes: [2]. I'll respect your opinion and agree that perhaps the second part is not necessary here, but the the first phrase is suitable as it is simply an extension to the already existing sentence. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It still looks too long in the lead for me, but I don't babysit this article--just keep it on my watchlist because a lot of good faith editors don't want to let any mention of any non-mainstream views exist without landing on them with much of the content of Homosexuality and psychology. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
These additions to the lede violate WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. The lead is designated as a summary of the body and is not an opportunity to expand on a point. I don't as of yet see a justification in policy for the addition, not do I see consensus. – Lionel (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the article yourself, my additions were summarizing what is in the body of the article. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Then we need to go through and de-COATRACK it again. Remember, WP:COATRACK is the one issue where adding more sourcing makes the problem worse, not better... Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This continues to move in the wrong direction, with the addition of various scare quotes to the article. It's time for a wholesale house-cleaning, which removes most of the discussion of debates about practices off to conversion therapy or homosexuality and psychology in the process of de-coatracking the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it's moving in the right direction. The addition of quotation marks to certain phrases was completely appropriate when certain phrases may seem to give validity to a discredited harmful junk science fringe view. Would you like to make suggestions as to how the article can be improved? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:BADEMPHASIS says you're wrong. As far as fixing the article, I've clearly stated above what needs to happen. While I'd rather edit collaboratively, I can go through and fix the COATRACKs and similar problems by myself if need be. I'm broadly hinting above that failure to move this article in a non-COATRACK direction makes this likelihood higher. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think your undo of everything was a bit too broad - I've changed the placing of quotation marks so as to try and not make them seem like what you say is scare quotes and ensure that it is noted where a claim is being made by a particular person. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Knowzilla--how about dropping the attitude: "what you say is scare quotes"? Jclemens is on solid ground with WP:BADEMPHASIS. Also the article is most definitely moving in the wrong direction. – Lionel (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not an attitude, because I wouldn't describe them as such. Such quotation marks are necessary (or it needs to be made clear where claims are being made) when leaving them without quotation marks or not making clear that claims are being made would seem to give validity to a discredited fringe view which directly contradicts scientific understanding and consensus. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a "my POV is NPOV" argument, which is common in many politically charged topics. The better option, of course, is to remove the discussion of the psychological community consensus to homosexuality and psychology where it can actually be put into context. And I'm re-reverting your scare quotes, since you neither have policy support nor numerical backing for your proposed change. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made your changes to the lead, but I don't have time to separate your good changes from the scare quotes right now. Would you please go back through and make changes to the text of the article, all in one series of revisions, without adding any quotation marks not associated with a direct quote? I'd rather seek consensus on things we can agree on, and the "considered themselves" change, for example, is a marked improvement over how the lead read before. Jclemens (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you agree to adding quotations marks and making it clear that a claim is being made where a reasonably disputable claim is being made per WP:SPS? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
@Knowzilla: your effort to "clarify where statements & quotes are" as you noted in your edit summary here was a dismal failure. The content that you placed within quotations were not direct quotations. When quotes are placed around paraphrasing it misleads the reader into thinking that the speaker actually spoke the words, when they are in fact an interpretation of a source by an editor. If you had bothered to verify the sources you would've realized this. I do not know if this is just plain carelessness or part of your single-minded attempt to bomb the article with scare quotes. All I know is you have been repeatedly warned about inappropriate quotation marks, have no consensus to add scare quotes, and this has now become disruptive. – Lionel (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The removal of the quotation marks may be fine, but you also removed wording intended to ensure that that the article conforms with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:NPOV. This edit most especially is an example of an unwarranted removal of wording intended to make clear that a claim is being made that is in contradiction to scientific consensus. Oh, and have some civility please. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 10:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

This article is about Ex-gay. Furthermore it is not a medical article. We have comprehensive articles on SOCE and conversion therapy. It is impossible to address such complicated subjects in worthwhile detail here. Also it is unnecessary to duplicate content from those articles here. We should delete the Sexual Orientation Change Efforts section and insert a wikilink at the appropriate location per WP:COATRACK. Your !votes are welcome for the straw poll. – Lionel (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator – Lionel (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There is an unfortunate tendency to any critic, individual or organizational, of the mainstream/majority view of homosexuality or associated topics to be buried under such COATRACK. Stating it once in homosexuality and psychology is sufficient and appropriate. This tendency is akin to every BLP on any Israeli having similar material on the Intafada inserted. Or go back 20 years, and every South African BLP having screds against apartheid included. Yes, it's absolutely appropriate that each of those topics have thorough coverage in Wikipedia... but NOT in every article that's even remotely related. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (partially) - per Lionelt's and Jclemens' rationales (for specifically only about the removal of the SOCE section). Although I'm not sure whether it would be best to remove the section entirely or to summarize it shortly, I do agree that it a slightly unnecessarily long section on something not directly about the topic of the article. It would probably be best to summarize the section - what are your opinions on this? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 04:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support shortening SOCE section to a summary section with a hatnote to the main article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Replaced with paragraph based on a quotation from the APA report: "let the reader decide for themselves." Also hatnote to SOCE and wikilink to conversion therapy so reader can obtain more detailed info. – Lionel (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

List of people

In order to solve the problems caused by the 'People' section and the ongoing dispute, I would propose that as per WP:SPS (and also WP:NPOV) we present any claims which are in contradiction to scientific consensus as clearly such. This can be done either through saying "he/she/some organisation states/claims that..." or alternatively by removing any disputable content such as "former homosexual" or "ended a homosexual lifestyle" as would be strongly mandated by WP:SPS as many of the sources are self-published (either by the individuals themselves or by an organization they are linked to). The removal of such material may also be a good solution as the section is about people who identify themselves as "ex-gay" anyway, and therefore any further commentary such as "former homosexual" is redundant. Opinions on this? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 18:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that there are "problems caused by the people section." The first problem as I see it, based on your posts on the talk page and edit summaries, is that you have a POV that you need to express using this article. This POV is an extremely negative bias toward "ex-gay." The second problem is that your personal POV is not shared by the consensus here. The third problem is that you think you can cite policies such as NPOV and SPS and override consensus to insert your personal bias into the article. I am loathe to refer to any editor's POV but in this case you have been very public about your opinions and your behavior, e.g. scare quotes, has become an issue. – Lionel (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly it's you who has a POV. You adamantly refuse in any way to attempt to reach a consensus, and are doing so again, as well as resorting to personal attacks on me. The entire purpose I started this section was to reach consensus on that, and again your refusing to be helpful. Secondly, call it what you want, my "personal bias" or whatever, but you've still to reply to the fact that the wording as it is in that section is non-factual & in direct contradiction to scientific consensus. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
So, let's think this through. People are experts on their own sexual orientation, so if X says X is no longer a homosexual, then X is, for all intents and purposes, no longer a homosexual, right? Same way if X announced that X is no longer heterosexual. So if we're taking all people at their word, I'm OK with that. So how can we state what X says with respect to X's sexual orientation without making it sound like we don't believe them? Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that we should just make clear to readers that it's the individuals themselves who are saying so. There's no need to make it sound like that individual is lying. It would just need to be worded like "X says/claims he/she is no longer Y" or that "Z-organization says that X is no longer Y". I'm just trying to have this article not directly contradict scientific consensus - that an individual cannot change their sexual orientation, whether it's from homosexual to heterosexual or heterosexual to homosexual or otherwise - perhaps they may change how they identify themselves but not their actual sexual orientation. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop bandying around "scientific consensus" when the research plainly does not support your position. To reduce a 138 page paper, in the case of the 2009 APA report, to "an individual cannot change their sexual orientation" is such a gross oversimplification it defies the imagination. What does the APA really say?

The available evidence, from both early and recent studies, suggests that although sexual orientation is unlikely to change, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) and other aspects of sexuality (i.e. values and behavior).

What can we glean from this?

  1. Sexual orientation is "unlikely" to change but not impossible
  2. Sexual orientation identity can be changed
  3. Sexual behavior also can be changed

Is it possible that an individual in this article changed his sexual orientation? It's unlikely, but possible. Is it possible that someone in this article changed their sexual orientation identity or behavior? Yes.
When someone states they "left homosexuality" how do we know that they aren't referring to behavior and not orientation? What if they aren't even talking about orientation: what if they just stopping having sex with men? And what if they are claiming to have changed orientation? How do we know they aren't one of those "unlikely" few that in fact did change their sexual orientation from homosexual to hetero?
It is impossible to address these medical issues in any detail in this article. The current treatment of individuals in the article doesn't address any so-called "scientific consensus"--as it shouldn't.– Lionel (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to think that I've taken that entirely from that single APA report only, whereas by 'scientific consensus' I mean the consensus amongst all the major mental health organizations in the world. Secondly, yes, I did say that sexual orientation identity can change, it's obvious that you can change how you identify yourself. Also, none of this needs to taken into consideration when we can simply change the wording to show that it is that individual who is making that claim when in fact it is. Lastly, quite a lot of the sources used for these claims are self-published (by the individual directly or by an organization they are heavily linked to), and go against WP:SPS. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tag bombing?

Please provide a detailed justification for why each of the *four* separate tags you added is independently necessary and appropriate for this article. A number of them seem partially or entirely redundant, and appear to be WP:tag bombing Jclemens (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well feel free to remove any tags you feel are not appropriate, I think the NPOV & Advert tags are most certainly warranted. I'll remove the other two if you feel strongly that they are not necessary. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Rationale for tags requested two days ago and none provided. – Lionel (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ordering of the paragraphs

In other wiki articles, the history is typically first. This has an over-emphasis on therapy, which none of the major ex-gay groups even provide. I suggest putting the history and groups towards the top and put the therapy stuff down at the bottom. Also the intro spends more time talking about how it is okay to be gay, which seems to be off-topic. It can be okay to be gay and okay to be ex-gay. The intro should summarize the points. Peculiar Light (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see us put this article in historical order. (I'd also like SOCE and/or Conversion therapy put in historical order, too.) It would be interesting to our readers to show how aims, methods, and attitudes have shifted over time.
Can we do this together? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I would hope so. This is a sensitive area for a number of folks, so I'd recommend we chart a path to reorganize the material across these articles and get buy-in from interested editors. Some sort of short-term collaboration, perhaps. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article isnt't supposed to be neutral, is it? It mostly reads like an ex-gay ad. In the lead section it almost seems as if APA supports the ex-gay movement. It quotes APA to promote sexual identity can be changed; it doesn't mention that APA considers this unlikely and possibly harmful. This is a distortion of the facts.--DVD-junkie | talk | 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is about a minority POV. As such, that minority POV is to be described in an NPOV way. To someone who doesn't agree with the minority POV, the NPOV treatment of that minority POV may seem POVish, but the article is fundamentally not about the majority POV. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of that. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. As it is, the article presents the minority view as fact, not as an opinion. For example, the above mentioned quote – taken out of context – seems to support the ex-gay movement, which the APA does not.--DVD-junkie | talk | 02:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay&diff=359383256&oldid=359181593 Ckatz repeatedly removed it. It is clear that current version of the article does not describe majority viewpoint in sufficient detail. --Destinero (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the article needs to be reworded substantially and balanced with the majority view. The article presents the ex-gay movement as “supportive”, almost nurturing, while they propose to “repair” something that wasn't broken in the first place. The article doesn't mention their motivations. Ex-gay literature not only ignores the impact of social stigma in motivating efforts to “cure” homosexuality, it is a literature that actively stigmatizes homosexuality as well.
There's much to be done.--DVD-junkie | talk | 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, of course it does, because that's the point of the ex-gay movement. NPOV is not a license to censor minority viewpoints. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about censoring? Wikipedia policy clearly states: “An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view[...] Values or opinions must never be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and discuss the fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion.” At present, the article does not adhere to this policy.--DVD-junkie | talk | 17:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The viewpoint that ex-gay is trying to "repair something that wasn't broken in the first place" cannot be a premise of this article. This article can neither assert the ex-gay POV ("something is broken") nor assert tho anti-ex-gay POV ("nothing broken here"). Rather it should describe what the ex-gay movement says about homosexuality.

Along with the description of what ex-gay says and does, we can also include as many words as it takes to show that ex-gay runs counter to the mainstream, or has been denounced by various professional groups, and so on.

However, it might take a different, larger article to address the controversies over homosexuality:

  1. Is there scientific proof that it is harmful or innocuous?
  2. Is there scientific proof that the homosexual orientation is innate, i.e., entirely inherited and not originating during early childhood?
  3. Is there scientific proof that it is impossible (or possible) for homosexual (or bisexual) persons to change (if they choose to make the effort to do so)?
  4. Is there scientific proof that every type of conversion therapy results in harm to those who volunteer to undergo it?

I have no opinion on any of the above, since I'm neither a scientists nor a therapist. But I do read books, magazines, and web articles. I've seen viewpoints on both sides. I'm also very interested in science, so if there are studies that have findings that bear on ony of the 4 questions above, I'd sure like to see them all in one place.

I don't want to see Wikipedia take sides on anything, unless there is something new in WP:NPOV added since I was a top-100 contributor and considered an expert on neutrality issues. If the new policy is that we present mainstream science as "true" and dismiss everything else as "fringe" or "erroneous" or pseudoscience, then so be it. Otherwise, I'd rather we remained unbiased. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. The article shouldn't take sides, shouldn't be biased. Of course, it should mention the ex-gay movement's positions – and attribute them accordingly: as their positions, not as fact (just a matter of proper phrasing).
  • The lead section improperly takes the ex-gay movement's self-image ("supporting ego-dystonic homosexuals") for granted. While they claim to advocate self-determination – sounds noble, doesn't it? –, they do not advocate for people choosing to have same sex relationships. They don't merely target ego-dystonic homosexuality – they foster a disapproving attitude toward homosexuality in general. They don't present the possibility that gays might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships, nor do they discuss alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization. Instead of merely providing and supporting a choice, they stigmatize and pathologize those who, in their mind, choose wrongly (as morally corrupt / sinful / unholy / suffering from a mental disorder). So, "support" is quite a euphemism.
  • The lead should summarize the whole article, yet it doesn't even mention the consideral controversy that surrounds this whole topic (and that the article briefly touches upon), while distorting the APA's point of view. I am not going to argue that we label mainstream science as "true", but at least their position should be presented (not misrepresented).
Exactly. What is the ex-gay movement's main purpose - to get gays to convert, or to help those individuals who themselves want to convert? In either case, what are the motives? Possibilities I can see are:
  • A view, either religious or personal, that homosexuality is immoral (though this still begs the question of why)
  • Conformism, a view that heterosexuality is a social norm to be followed
  • A view that homosexuality is a disease, presumably on a majority rule basis
  • Finding it difficult to get by in a mainly heterosexual world
In any case, the article needs to address the reasons for the movement's existence. — Smjg (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the motivations aren't clearly stated; only the results they desire are. There needs to be research done in order to find a source that clearly synthesizes their motivations(no original research permitted). Phreakazoas 09:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakazoas (talk • contribs)

Harm and benefit

The APA report says:

Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE, just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it.

It is important to note that there have been no causal evidence of harm and that there are people who perceive to have been benefited from it. Please do not remove this from the section. Peculiar Light (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, there never will be any real studies on harm, because no institutional review board would approve tests on human subjects in this area simply to satisfy curiosity. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
According that kind of reasoning (which is WP:OR), there won't be any long-term studies on the connection between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I don't think we can use it in the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It was offered in response to Peculiar Light's statement regarding absence of evidence of harm. Now we wouldn't randomly assign consenting study participants to smoke or not smoke, any more than we'd randomly assign consenting study participants to SOCE or not. That doesn't eliminate the possibilities of case-control studies, of course. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
That seems unlikely, given that since 2001, the American Psychological Association "encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determine "reparative" therapy's risks versus its benefits." [3] (Which should also be added.) Regardless of why no casual evidence has ever been found, I think that is important information to include in the article. I can see the benefit of discussing why nothing has ever been found, given that the references are properly sourced, but not to exclude that information. It is not up to us to interprete why the APA said what it said. We should put it back in as soon as possible. Peculiar Light (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Haldeman

Dr. Haldeman has defended the right of people to get whatever treatment that they want, saying "psychology does not have the right to interfere with individuals’ rights to seek the treatments they choose". This was removed from the article, so the article sounds as if Dr. Haldeman is against patients rights. In addition, the article pits gay rights activists against the right to therapy. There are many gay right activists who support rights of gay people to seek therapy. While many gay people seek to take away people's rights, this is not true of gay rights movement as a whole. Peculiar Light (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have citations for any of those? I would especially be interested in seeing any gay rights activist who specifically supports conversion "therapy" as therapy - there's a difference between supporting someone's right to obtain medical therapy and trying to make that a blanket statement including "therapy" that the international medical community has debunked as potentially harmful. I'm not saying I would disagree with such changes or inclusions... I'm saying it would be nice to see valid citations to show such. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The quote was from Dr. Haldeman's report entitled Gay rights and patients rights: The implementation of sexual orientation conversion therapy. He was specifically talking about conversion therapy. Camilia Paglia also has supported gay rights to therapy. Anyhow, in order to claim gay right activists are actually against gay rights to therapy needs a reliable source to be in the article. Peculiar Light (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"While many gay people seek to take away people's rights, " <--- what exactly does that mean? I don't know any gay people who want to take away any rights. If you are discussing the therapy stuff, the most I have ever seen anywhere are people who are against non-medical people offering to cure (ie: medical) people of something as easily cured as being left handed.
Now, as for Haldeman, you are again taking it out of context by picking only the piece you want. He went on to say in that same paragraph: "This is why the mental health organizations have adopted advisory policies about conversion therapy that affirm the right of LGB clients to unbiased treatment in psychotherapy and that reject treatments based upon the premise that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder. " - if you read that whole paragraph, what it is closer to saying is that he supports a person's choice to any valid therapy, and that SOCE is a form of treatment that should be rejected based on the belief that it's a treatable mental disorder. Of course, we can't say that, because he didn't. It's actually OR based on the SOCE groups claiming, it's something (mentally) wrong and treatable. That's pretty much direct claim of it being a treatable mental disorder. So, if you include it, the only place I can think of would be in him recommending to reject such treatments. Agree?
Means a VASTLY different thing if you once again dont settle for brevity. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like he is okay with therapy that isn't based upon the premise that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder. Some SOCE view it that way and some do not. Peculiar Light (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Please advise me of which one (or ones) do not view it as a mental disorder. Of late, even the ones who do not outright call it such simply couch it in other words to circumvent the crime of offering medical treatment without a license. It is highly likely I have missed a few though, but even that being the case, I suggest we would need to prove such relevance by providing such organizations. So, to that, I defer to your greater knowledge. Please elucidate as to which ones. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

CopyVio and Controversy Section

(In case anyone wonders from the article history) no, I did not insert the copyvio, though I did erroneously revert to it. Good catch NatGertler! This does perhaps leave some work to be done on the lead paragraph of the Controvery section though as we are now stuck with an uncited statement an anon put in place (which is at least marginally better than a copyvio). Any ideas? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. To be clear, I was accusing the material of being copyvio, and not the editor I was undoing of purposefully engaging in copyvio. Please note (in case someone is tempted to just revert and then rephrase) that the problem with the material I re-deleted was not merely one of copyvio.
  • Speculation was being repeated, which is of dubious encyclopedic value unless the author can be shown to be an expert.
  • The material being used to describe the "current" situation was 4 years old, which is fairly old in the scope of history we're dealing with.
  • The cited material referred solely to Exodus International, and our article was inappropriately treating it as if it referred to the whole of the "ex-gay movement".
It did, overall, fit an impressive number of problems into a small space! --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Including information from APA on ex-gay people

Much of the text focuses on what the APA says about SOCE. There is another article for that. We need to include what the APA says about ex-gay people. I added some information that is helpful. One, is a quote from Dr. Judith Glassgold where she says "there has been little research on the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is ‘no clear evidence of harm’ and ‘some people seem to be content with that path." Another is a quote from the task force report stating that acting on same-sex attraction is not a fulfilling solution for some people. As far as I am aware, there is no reliable controversy over these statements. I see no reason why they should not be included in the article. Peculiar Light (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you are attempting to use them out of context? For instance, your last "quote" truly says "For some clients, acting on same-sex attraction may not befulfilling solutions as it may conflict with their religious beliefs" - but of course, if you finish the quote, it does not properly promote the bias you are unknowingly trying to convey.
Please remember, it's not whether one can reliably source something. One must also properly use such without twisting it to one's own bias. I'm sure it was unintentional... but now that it's been pointed out, perhaps we can put this whole section to bed. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen that statement paraphrase used out of context by dropping that part of it a bunch of places, btw. So, as noted above, I'm sure it was an innocent error. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I was going for brevity. I have no problem including the second portion. Peculiar Light (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
How or why? Or to portray what? I am not sure of the relevance of showing that some people value their interpretation of their religious beliefs over their inherent sexuality. I wish I could make suggestions on this, but I suspect I'd need to read the report to see the full context of the sentence. And of course, brevity in the actual article cannot happen due to the misleading conclusion it portrays - but we already covered that. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It would make sense if we are talking about the ex-gay movement to mention that the APA finds that acting on their same-sex attraction is not a fulfilling solution for some as it conflicts with their religious beliefs. These are the people the article is talking about. Acting on their same-sex attraction is not an option for these people, for whatever reason, so it doesn't matter how normal acting on it is for other people. Those aren't the people this article is talking about. I don't see why you don't think showing that some people value their interpretation of their religious beliefs over their inherent sexuality is relevant in article that is about those people.Peculiar Light (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

*I* dont have any problem with that. In terms of Wikipedia, I couldn't care less what anyone's religion or religious beliefs are on any matter (including my own). The relevance I do not see is to where you think the addition should go - not that it's irrelevant. Can't just dump in a quote, especially one that you and I both know is possibly going to generate flack. So, to rephrase this better, where do you think it is relevant and how? That way it's not just some quote stuck in that isn't relevant to the section it's dumped in. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I liked where I put it, and I don't understand why it can't go there. It seems odd to start off an article about ex-gays and say there is no problem with being gay. It would be like writing an article about Judiasm by saying there is no problem with being a Christian. There are some people for whom identifying as gay works for them, but there are people for whom it simply does not work. This article is about the latter group. That is what the APA is saying. I think it should be put in the second paragraph and the fact that identifying as gay is also healthy should be subordinate to the fact that rejecting a gay identity as a valid choice. Peculiar Light (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no problem with being gay. This isn't an article on quaint religious beliefs. And if it were, it would have to also cover the fact that numerous (and growing) sects of Christianity are now endorsing and performing gay marriages in any jurisdiction where it is legal by law. If I had a problem with people having hazel eyes, could we claim there's a problem with people having hazel eyes? Of course not.
And yes, in the Judaism article, it does not claim there's a problem with being Christian. And no, that is not what the APA is saying; that's a gross oversimplification taken out of context, with your own synthesis added to it. As noted, you are (repeatedly) pulling only the parts of quotes that support the position you are suggesting, while dropping the rest of the quote which give the whole a different meaning (see above and below for examples). I would like to continue to AGF, but brevity, combined with mischaracterizing what the source says, can only happen so many times by accident. I won't claim it's malicious after that point, but it definitely isn't right or acceptable. So, lets have no more accidental brevity issues that mischaracterize the sources. Please. Thus, if you wish to continue to re-evaluate this, I would respectfully request you find an actual citation that supports your position above as opposed to a piece of a statement taken out of context. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For clarification, by "quaint" I mean "charmingly old fashioned" and am referring to EI's beliefs that contradict those of the vast majority of sects of Christianity. No disparagement was intended. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ex-gay_movement/Archive_4&oldid=1142546707"