Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Conversion therapy for pedophile priests

The treatment of clerical child abusers has been a source of conflict around the United States and at the Saint Luke Institute. Clinicians who treat offenders often agree that abusive priests cannot be cured but argue that relapse studies suggest that some offenders do respond well to treatment and, although they are not cured, they are less likely to re-offend. Thus, these clinicians argue not for a cure but for successful treatment. [1][2] ADM (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of your comments? What are you suggesting? BG talk 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was mentioning the fact that a big part of the US priest abuse scandal involved a controverisal form of conversion therapy for abusive priests, a therapy that was later abandoned due to social pressures and the realization that pedophiles cannot be changed even by hormonal therapies. Certain conservative bishops mistakingly confused pederastic clergy with homosexual clergy and adopted classical conversion techniques which ultimately failed on the welfare of thousands of American children. ADM (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you proposing for the article? BG talk 06:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that the article could briefly mention the Saint Luke Institute and explain why its methods have proven to be controversial. ADM (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. BG talk 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Polite and collaborative, as always. Can't have someone else trespassing on your page, can we? Hyper3 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ADM has an unfortunate history of posting talkpage comments on "gee, shouldn't we add content that conflates LGBT people with pedophilia", sometimes the focus is also on Jewish culture etal. Insist on strong reliable sourcing and ignore until then. -- Banjeboi 09:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Well now I've started with a sockpuppet case. I'm sorry if this is a bit boring for anyone who has to witness this, but I think I have uncovered evidence for Born Gay being the banned user Skoojal. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you look back you will see a very similar pattern of editing and commenting. Sigh. Hope I'm right, or I'll have to do a lot of apologising. See this and this and this.Hyper3 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason to apologise. I am Skoojal. BG talk 20:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BG - out of interest, what is your motivation with all of this? You seem to be a complex character! I feel I have unmasked Zorro. Hyper3 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had my reasons. Doesn't matter what they are now. Wikipedia hasn't heard the last of me. BG talk 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Throw me a few crumbs. I've been arguing with you for months... Hyper3 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it is the admitted sock puppet of a disruptive editor, and that he has admitted using a deceptive username, and to have strong views on this topic, and seeing as how he has exerted ownership over this article, would it be appropriate to roll the article back to an earlier version?   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

JJ, Boweneer, Mish, any thoughts? How far could you roll it back - he has been involved for years in one form or another. Hyper3 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is sad to me--I just don't understand why someone would want to do this kind of thing.

Yes I have no problems with "starting over". What I'd like to do is be able to discuss the article and make sure that all sides of the issue are represented. I have already said I had serious NPOV personal issues with this topic, so perhaps I'd prefer to not directly edit the article, but review materials and post my thoughts on the talk page. Is the article going to become a redirect to SOCE?--Boweneer (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Which version do you suggest we move back to? I agree that BG was taking ownership of the article, but others have made contributions. We should be able to revert most of it. Boweneer, I still feel that conversion therapy is only one type of SOCE, but I am open to discuss it. My main problem was the double definition that BG was trying to promote. I do appreciate your comments and hope now we will be able to incorporate the changes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I haven't really followed this article closely and have no opinion about BG's edits. I'm just reminding users here that BG's edits may be summarily reverted without any further justification. He's clearly made editors waste a lot of time debating with him.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It will be hard to find a good point to roll back to. I think the best thing to do is to do it section by section. Knowing that we can revert his edits without any further justification will help a lot. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Said it before and i'll say it again: this article is shit and will remain shit. Carry on making it up as you go along, wiki-morons. Accuracy Crucified (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I also feel it is only one type of SOCE, in that these cluster of therapies are relatively "recent" as far as human history goes, and that I think sources will overlap definitions. I don't think they are discrete yet as terms, and the sources would be "stronger" grouped together as one article at this point.

Now, I think a potential bone between us will be the religious origins of these therapies. I think that if the article makes it clear somewhere that there is a dynamic tension between religion/spirituality and homosexuality, and the choice between seeking gay-affirmative therapy vs. SOCE therapies most likely hinges on that tension, I will be satisfied.

So I personally think a redirect to a comprehensive SOCE article with integrated criticism, a clear statement that this is a minority position (but one that seems efficacious for some individuals), and outlines the missteps as well as advances, I will be satisfied.--Boweneer (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that many sources overlap, and it would be stronger to use all of them. However, I do think that there are things that are clearly specific to CT. I think this article can focus on that, while the SOCE can incorporate all of the overlapping sources and can carry the strong case. Once I have time, I will try to beef up the Reasons why they change section so that the religious component is more clear. I have tried to summarize your points on the SOCE page. Let me know if I misunderstood you. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I guess I should state again that in today's world, I think it's pretty clear that there are many resources for both "sides" of this discussion, and the Wikipedia article should just report on what's what, and not push a certain side.

On the sockpuppet note, I went to Skoojal's talk page and looked back through the history. Wow. That was enlightening. I guess it's easy to get WP editors who want to own and article because of their off-wiki RL expertise and/or experience. Still sad to me. I view editing here as a way to learn.

When I get a chance, I will read over both articles more carefully and reply back with my opinions here.--Boweneer (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, Skoojal/Born Gay explains his motives here Hyper3 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Those statements themselves may be purposefully misleading, I do believe them when they state they intended to disrupt and test. Let's just move forward from here and repair any damage. -- Banjeboi 09:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for missing this. I had got sick of editing and certain views being promoted on the encyclopedia. I am upset to find this out, as BG has been a particularly difficult editor to work with. Yes, I certainly do think we need to comprehensively review this article now, and possibly roll-back to a time before BG took over the article and tactically exluded other editors. Mish (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving on

I think the general consensus is that SOCE will be the main article and conversion therapy should focus on the definition given by the American Psychiatric Association that conversion therapy is "psychiatric treatment...based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation" and that SOCE that do not fall under this category should remain on the SOCE article. However, it should also be clear that not all sources use this as a definition. I think the bulk of the political debate, medical statements and so forth should be on the SOCE, and this page should summarize the information and point to the SOCE page. I am planning to reorganize the page in that fashion. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

There was a previous discussion on homophobia. It was decided that this category should only be applied if it is discussed in the article, but that changes would wait until after mediation. Mediation is over, and there has not been any section added that discusses homophobia. To label this article as homophobia without any reference amounts to OR. If no one adds a reference with this to homophobia, I will remove the category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it Wikipedia policy to only put something in a category if sources CLEARLY state it is? I think that previous editors who wanted this categorized as homophobia weren't able to source it properly. Though I dislike this therapy and think it fits in this category, my opinion means diddly-squat in terms of encylopedic content and is highly POV.

I think that the criticisms of the conversion therapy technique itself and/or the motives of the practitioners is enough, if sourced. A good encyclopedic article IMO should lay out information but not bludgeon people with this kind of opinion.--Boweneer (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia is to be applied not in a way that suggests that the content or subject is homophobic, but that the content or subject relates to homophobia. Thus, persistent outspoken comments that are seen as promoting or opposing homophobia (as described by originator/s or commentator/s in reliable sources). If this article discusses homophobia, then it would warrant the category - but that does not imply that the subject is homophobic, simply that it relates to homophobia. If it doesn't, then there is no reason why the category would be applicable. Mish (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The term is a difficult one to apply. I'm discussing this with Joshuajohanson over on the SOCE talk page. I think it would be best for these articles to clearly state that historically there have been homophobic applications of the therapy (intimidating GLB people into the therapy for example), but they need to be sourced. That seems more effective and accurate than slapping a category on these articles, and better overall for the reader.--Boweneer (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Create a "History of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts" entry

I think this entry is too long, and the history section needs to be spun off. Also it needs to be matched up with SOCE so we don't get two history articles, as SOCE is the parent article. Any thoughts? Hyper3 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. I honestly don't know much about the history and my focus has always been on the current situation. Another thought would be to combine with a more general History of homosexuality and psychology. Much of the early stuff was general psychology anyhow, and that would free us up to be able to talk about the declassification, which doesn't really have much to do with SOCE. On the other hand maybe History of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts would be easier to also include some of the post-declassification developments. The current history section on SOCE needs major help. I'm fine with whatever. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Boweneer (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. For example, I just saw a list of 23 studies - would be great to mention and (critically evaluate?) them. -- Joo (talk)

Umm, I think this article is incredibly boring and if all the people from NARTH want to write a book about their long sordid history, they should do so but not on Wikipedia. I think this entry needs to be cut down to half its size and feature some of the horrendous techniques that were used in the 60's like electro shock therapy and humiliation/aversion therapy... Of course, the NARTH people will come in and delete it all because most of them were the ones advocating that stuff and they don't want us to make the connections... I can't make these changes to the article because everytime I try to contribute to wikipedia it just gets undone the next day! 98.203.23.189 (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me. I don't understand why you're speaking of the 60's when the studies listed below are dated from the 70's and are as recent as 2007. btw, I'm not from NARTH. -- Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

Here are 23 empirical studies and case studies published over the past 40 years. Together, they indicate that 1,202 homosexually oriented people out of 3,036 in the 23 studies (40%!) experienced at least some heterosexual shift:

Jones & Yarhouse, Book: Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study, InterVarsity Press, 2007. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 33 out of 73

Shidlo & Schroeder, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2002. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 14 out of 202

Nicolosi, Byrd & Potts, Psychological Reports, 1997. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 573 out of 882

Berger, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1994. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1

MacIntosh, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1994. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 276 out of 1,215

Golwyn & Sevlie, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1

Schechter, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1992. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1

Van den Aardweg, Book: On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality, 1986 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 37 out of 101

Schwartz & Masters, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1984 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 35 out of 54

Pattison & Pattison, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1980 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 11 out of 11

Birk, Book: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal, 1980 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 18 out of 29

Masters & Johnson, Book: Homosexuality in Perspective, 1979 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 29 out of 67

Socaridies, Book: Homosexuality, 1978 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 20 out of 45

Callahan, Book: Counseling Methods, 1976 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1

Freeman & Meyer, Behavior Therapy, 1975 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 9 out of 11

Canton-Dutari, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 44 out of 54

Birk, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1974 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 14 out of 66

Liss & Weiner, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1973 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1

Barlow & Agras, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 2 out of 2

Pittman & DeYoung, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1971 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 3 out of 6

Truax & Tourney. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1971 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 20 out of 30

Hatterer, Book: Changing Homosexuality in the Male, 1970 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 49 out of 143

McConaghy, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1970 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 10 out of 40

-- Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

I have NOT taken time to read all the preceeding citations, however, I am familiar with the topic at hand. I think that the American Psychological Association's recent review of research (that is scientific in method and critiques ALL available literature on conversion/reparative treatments) would be an excellent source. While some of these studies provided may show a "heterosexual shift" - no one seems to have defined what "counts" as a "shift". Much of the conversion/reparative lit determines "success" to be abstaining from same-sex behavior. Absence of behavior does not result in the cessation of same-sex attraction. I would encourage carefully defining what "shift" means before stating that so many sources suggest a change in sexual orientation. The citation for the REPUTALBE, scientific study of conversion/reparative treatments is: It should also be noted that NARTH recently re-published old findings from articles that failed to employ a scientific method (in hopes of deflecting attention from the APA task-force report can be downloaded from this page: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx ). Hope this helps - because the available scientific research suggests that human sexuality is set from birth (read Savin-Williams, 2005 book "The New Gay Teenager" for more on the history of this matter). Also, the American Counseling Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association have pretty much concluded that conversion treatments are harmful (see for example: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx ) Hope this is helpful for the editors! Dustin Shepler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.7.47 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Yarhouse and Throckmorton citation from the bibliography. The PDF link leads to a "404 error" (dead page). The additional link for the citation leads only to an abstract.ToddSurfs 04:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)ToddSurfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSurfs (talk • contribs)

... which does not, by itself, necessitate removal. See WP:PAYWALL. Gabbe (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The element of free will

It's not clear at first glance whether any conversion therapies are voluntary. I get the chilling impression that "conversion" is something done to people against their will.

Can we not distinguish between conversion therapy "done to" people who are less than fully aware and perfectly willing, and reparative therapy sought out by homosexuals who want to change?

I'm assuming that there are volunteers; but if this is disputed, let's write about the dispute.

I have heard that before the 1970s there was a lot of pressure on homesexuals to change, and I've read several accounts of homosexuals forced to undergo "therapies" such as electric shock treatment. But I think this might be contrasted with the work of counselors and mental health professionals who treat only volunteers (assuming there are any).

Anyone else interested in making this distinction with me? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• A distinction needs to be made between what is entered into freely and what is done forcefully. Under the mental health model, people could be treated unwillingly. Once homosexuality was removed from DSM, treatment depended on a desire to change sexual orientation. However, free will and constraint are not the two exclduive models. There is also coercion. People have always, and may well still be, coerced into undergoing treatment. Sanctions such as exclusion, from a church, from family, from community, from employment, are all coercive. Thus, somebody can willingly seek treatment, yet not freely choose treatment. Don't ask me how you can summarise that in a Wiki article, or establish sources for that - but it will be dealt with somewhere (I didn't come up with this out of the blue). My suggestion would be to work this out in a sandbox, flesh it out and discuss it there, then insert a section on the three approaches. There is a lot about this in relation to aversion therapy, and other methods that pre-dated the DSM de-pathologisation. Mish (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've personally tried conversion therapy 'willingly', and failed to change. While I sought treatment because of ecclesiastical pressure (and a personal desire to change), several friends of mine where forced into therapy by their families while they were under age 18. It's a lie to suggest that all people today seek it out themselves as parents can legally force their children to participate in programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadious (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have been on a break for a while. If there is anything needing looking at in this article, let me know. I am not intending to resume such a level of hands-on editing as I did in the past, as it led to too many sleepless nights. In some ways, what happened here around the time I left led me to disengage myself from Wikipedia for a while. Mish (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I put back in a section that talks about the debate around self-determination. This section has been added and removed several times. I personally believe some editors are not willing to admit that some people freely chose such therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Involuntary vs. voluntary treatment

I wonder if enough emphasis has been given on the distinction between involuntary and voluntary treatment. I just finished watching "Changeling (film)", which has as a major plot theme the abuse of hospitalization and electroshock for a political purpose (i.e., to stop women from criticizing the police department's effectiveness or making assault charges against individual cops). I hope this isn't swaying my editorial judgment, but merely renewing a proper sense of outrage.

In the past, were homosexual men or women ever committed to mental hospitals and/or subjected to treatments like electric shock, against their will? If so, when did this start; how prevalent was it; when did it end?

Please take this next question at face value: did homosexual people ever voluntarily accept (or even seek) such treatments?

Apart from physical interventions ("aversion therapy"?) what sort of "talk therapies" have been tried?

The reason I ask this is that I want to be clear in our writings about therapies which are offered for "people who want to change", i.e., specifically the ideas and methods of Richard Cohen. What I read and see online indicates frequent misunderstanding or distortion of his (and similar) views. (Or am I the one who misunderstands?)

I think there's a universal modern agreement that no one should be subjected to any kind of conversion therapy against their will. Advocates on both sides of the "born gay" issue agree that involuntary therapy is not just ineffective, it's morally wrong (or unethical).

There's also the issue of whether it's also unethical for a therapist to agree to provide conversion therapy to a volunteer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer is probably yes, in the UK at least, in both cases. There was a paper in the BMJ about these treatments two or three years ago. There used to be a thin line in mental health care between voluntary and compulsory - as in 'you can either stay voluntarily, or else we will section you'. Problem is you only really have the testimony of those affected. These treatments were phased out for homosexuals in the 1970's. Before the 1970s, things were such that people often found it very difficult to refuse such treatments, and the stresses of living in secrecy could manifest through other mental health issues - depression, alcohol abuse, paranoia. If you read Eric Berne from those days, he regards paranoia as symptomatic of latent homosexuality. Mish (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Having recently seen I'll Be There (film) I know what "sectioned" means. There's a whole human rights issue about people being committed against their will to mental hospitals (or even kept by their family or by family employees somewhere) to change their attitude about (or belief in) something (see deprogramming).

I guess it's a question of what people have a legal right to be or do or think, in their respective countries.

Is there a lingering sense that, since countless homosexual people were subjected to involuntary and ineffective "treatment" (for something that is no longer even considered a disorder), any attempt to apply psychotherapy with a similar aim would necessarily also be harmful even if it were clear that a person had voluntarily applied to become a patient?

Or is it more that there is scientific evidence that volunteers cannot give up homosexual feelings, no matter what kind of therapy they try? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear that the involuntary 'treatment' was effective (as your statement suggests) - in fact the opposite. That is one of the reasons they were discontinued, because it was not only ineffective, but harmful. There are hours of testimony of people who endured loveless marriages for many years as a result of these therapies, suicides, and people incapable of ever having an intimate relationship with any other human being subsequently. That is what we know - we do not know if anybody benefitted, because these testimonies are absent. The therapists who conducted these 'treatments' did not seem to regard them as effective either, and that is why they stopped doing them (alongside pressure from groups like the GLF). This is documented in the Hall-Carpenter Archives oral archives in the British Library, and the books produced from them.

It is nearly twenty-five years since I worked in a therapeutic establishment, a rehabilitation unit for IV drug users; the view then was that such therapy only tends to work if entered into voluntarily. My understanding is that the APA suggests that therapy is a tool to assist those who cannot accept their sexual orientation, and that therapies to change sexual orientation are not known to work. The scientific/clinical consensus is that sexual orientation cannot be changed through therapy.

However, sexual orientation does change through people's lives. People who are gay most of their adult life become straight, such as the late George Melly; Tom Robinson who penned a gay anthem "Glad to be Gay" got married and had a family. There are numerous accounts of people who become gay later in life, after a period of heterosexuality, although it is usually assumed they were 'in the closet', and 'came out' as gay. None of this really accounts for bisexuality where some people are attracted to men and women, and at different stages in their lives may be attracted to one more than the other, or simply settle into a relationship with one rather than the other - thereby living either as a straight couple or a gay couple, although being in actuality bisexual. So, sexual orientation can appear to change, even without therapy, although it may only be an appearance, or simply that tastes change, or a choice is made.

What is problematic about therapy to change sexual orientation is that it is predicated on the belief that being gay or lesbian is in some way morally wrong - as such, it is an abuse of psychiatry, because it is using techniques designed to deal with mental health issues in order to treat what is seen as moral sickness rather than a mental health issue. It has the same status as certain psychiatric treatments used in the former Soviet Union to deal with dissidence. The position of the APA is clear, there is no reason to treat people who are homosexual, as it is not a psychiatric illness, but there may be reasons for using therapy with people who cannot accept their sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo! I meant to write "ineffective treatment", and I apologize for not checking what I had written carefully. I have marked up my amended comment above with underline formatting like this:

• ineffective

--Uncle Ed (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific factors influencing the APA

Could we please get a list of scientific factors which have influenced the APA's changing position on conversion therapy? In particular, which studies have found that homosexuality is immutable?

I'm also very interested in the results of 'therapy' (other than aversion therapy which involves punishments, shaming, and violations of confidentiality) on patients, both those who were committed or 'sectioned' (or otherwise pressured into submitting) and those who are clearly and unambiguously volunteers.

• Is there a difference in the result or effects, between those who were subjected to 'treatment' vs. those who actually sought it out?
• Is there more agreement on the harmful effects on prisoners and people forced into treatment; and more disagreement on the harmful or beneficial effects on those who genuinely volunteer for treatment?
• Do all studies show an utter failure to bring about a change in orientation for those who volunteer for reparative therapy, or are there some peer-reviewed studies which claim a 'significant' success rate?

I'm not advocating one thing or another, although if anyone thinks the fact that I met and talked to Richard Cohen a few times means I could be unconsciously biased in favor of his ideas, I can bow out. I'm simply saying that the article should describe all viewpoints fairly, which should include giving the reasons for various decisions and findings in cases where these are public knowledge. I feel that a summary of the arguments and evidence for each side helps the reader to decide for themselves what's what. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me, and I have commented on this before, that this is an article more about the politics of conversion therapy than conversion therapy. I have worked on this article for a year now, and nowehere have I come across anything that discusses what conversion therapy involves. For somebody coming to this article for information, they may be able to gauge how some consider it a good thing, but the scientific-medical consensus is that it is a bad thing, but come away having no idea what is actually involved. It could be administering ECT, or aversion, or other things - but nowehere do we deal with what this sort of therapy involves in the year 2010, the techniques, and so on. Unless I have missed something... I would have thought this would be the baseline for such an article - and yet I am not aware of any sources that detail what is involved, only that it is a good or bad thing. One imagines it has something to do with all the names discussed in the historical section, but I am not aware of anything that connects what Bergler did over fifty years ago with what happens today. It appears that what is objected to is the 'idea' of conversion therapy, rather than any actual contemporary documented therapeutic practice. Mish (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd like to divide the article into two. One section (or page!) could be Politics of conversion therapy recounting nearly a century of advocacy about ways of "getting" homosexuals to change: who says we ought to, who says we better not, etc. Another section or page could be Techniques of conversion therapy, beginning with the modern techniques that current CT advocates are using (and claiming positive results from).

Whether we make such a split or not, we must not lose sight of the fact that opposition to conversion therapy is frequently based on the belief that CT is harmful, even on volunteers. Arguments for (or against) this belief generally cite either or both of the following:

1. Statements by major scientific or therapeutic bodies
2. Scientific papers describing studies on volunteers and published in (or rejected by) peer-reviewed journals

It will be difficult to clarify the reasons for opposition. I've spent dozens of hours reading various books and articles. A lot of these IMHO mix up outdated, involuntary or unproven attempts at CT (such as electric shock, intended to produce aversion; or "praying for them") with scientific studies on volunteers who participated in talk therapy (with or without hugging or pillow-beating).

A good encyclopedia article clarifies things that may otherwise remain muddled. Let's work together on this, shall we? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lancet published some stuff on this a few years ago - but again, this was about what happened to people historically. There was also a documentary on Channel 4 in the 1990s. There is a more recent book I have, can't remember if it was Drescher, Zucker or Cantor who edited it - I'll dig it out. Mish (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I'm going to do some copy editing to try to clean up and clarify the language in some sections. It is not my intention to change the underlying meaning. If you feel my edits change the meaning unacceptably, I invite you to move the language forward rather than to revert. There are some seriously tortured sentences in here. Viciouslies (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldeman issues: I noticed that the sentence in the introduction that starts "Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes..." was cited as being from a 1991 paper by Gonsiorek. Because of that, I tracked down the Haldeman paper online (and added the URL to the Bibliography section), and found that the list of techniques in the sentence credited to Haldeman included items such as "sex therapy," which are not found in the original text. I've re-written that sentence to reflect what is actually in the cited paper.

I also noticed that several additional instances of work credited to Haldeman in the text are cited as Gonsiorek. Will go through and fix the ones I've found, but please be aware of this as an issue. Viciouslies (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, it seems the Gonsiorek/Haldeman issue is the result of misuse of the citation template. Gonsiorek was an editor of a volume in which Haldeman's paper appeared, but was listed as the author in the citation template. I have made Gonsiorek the editor and added Haldeman as the author. This changed all references for Gonsiorek save one, a sentence in the text referring to criticisms of Masters & Johnson made by Gonsiorek in 1981, which is included in Haldeman's 1991 paper. I've also added a link to the chapter on Haldeman's web site. Viciouslies (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Aspersions & manufactured controversy

In accord with BRDC I have reverted a series of edits by Stepback84 (talk · contribs), because they were each pretty stark violations of Wikipedia protocol. This edit introduced an editorial and unencyclopædic "It should be noted…" remark that cast fatuous assertions on Shidlo & Schroeder's study. This edit aggravated that offence against NPOV by referring to the "openly gay" researchers and reporting a non-published working title of the report, both tactics clearly meant to imply that gay researchers would produce biased research. This edit added the disparaging word "alleged" to the subheading in violation of WP:ALLEGED. None of the edits I reverted added balance or rectitude to the article; each of them inserted or reinforced the editor's own point of view, and in so doing pushed the article away from the NPOV goal. Before any or all of these edits can be reinstated, we'll need to discuss them here on the talk page and see what consensus develops. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the science and the science journalism on various topics related to Homosexuality for the last 10 years. I have not seen any evidence that being gay has affected the scientific objectivity of any researcher. Curiously enough, it was Simon LeVay whose work was distorted by pro-gay journalists, and who had to protest the conclusions the press drew from his work, saying:

• It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. [3]

I'd be happy to work further with you, Scheinwerfermann, on whatever it takes to make a neutral and comprehensive article on Conversion therapy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, EP. I am happy, of course, to collaborate with any and all editors who make a genuine effort to contribute in accord with Wikipedia protocol. Perhaps it's because I slept poorly last night and am up late again tonight, but I am having a little trouble understanding your comments here, though; maybe you can help me out. You are…agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, neither, both? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure whether I was commenting on whether I agree with you, but you sound like a good person to work with on this article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, t'riffic. So do you. We appear to have attained consensus! ;-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Amount and direction of controversy

• These types of therapies have been a source of intense controversy

Are we using the word "controversy" as a synonym for "opposition"? I thought controversy means a dispute between two sides, as when the USA was split in 2000 over whether to elect Gore or Bush. With the exception of a few obscure advocates, I don't see anyone standing up for conversion therapy. The mainstream is adamantly opposed to it, but a one-sided opposition does not make an "intense controversy".

There is no "controversy" in Western academic circles over whether The Holocaust occurred; the controversy is between the largely Christian and Jewish West ("it did") and the largely Arab and Muslim Middle East ("it didn't"). There is no controversy over whether smoking cigarettes increases one's risk of getting cancer; the controversy was in the 1950s and 1960s when the earliest research programs had not yet borne fruit.

Is there any evidence that an intense controversy now exists over reparative therapy, conversion therapy or SOCE? Or is it more a minor matter of advocacy by a few obscure groups, met with opposition by the mainstream? I'm thinking of scientific disputes like that over cold fusion, which is not an "intense" controversy: the mainstream took a long, hard look at the supposed phenomenon, and when no reputable scientist could duplicate it, the scientific world dismissed it.

If there is a controversy, then there must be two sides. Let's not violate our undue weight policy by suggesting that the two sides on conversion therapy have an equal following. If the APA, etc., have dismissed CT as unproven and then pretty much forgotten about it then there is no intensity. It is only if there is evidence of an ongoing anti-CT campaign that we could say there is an intense controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right; somebody somewhen along the line put in that "controversy" wording as a (failed) attempt at diplomatically describing shrill, scientifically-baseless advocacy of conversion "therapy" by religious zealots. Per WP:SPADE and the undue-weight policy, I believe we are duty-bound to reword this to reflect that reality. Now: how? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to find out how much support there is for CT, and how much opposition. I mean, how many pro and con articles. If the mainstream is largely ignoring the issue, then it's a case of the fringe kicking up a fuss. On the other hand, if Drescher and Zucker are right, [4] (a source I read only after writing the comments above), then the controversy is not only intense but "vitriolic". *Sigh* I dunno. What do you want to do? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that finding out "how many pro and con articles" would get us anywhere useful. A statement's inclusion in even a reliable source does not necessarily imply veracity, so it is important to evaluate sources' quality, not just their quantity. The process of steady, incremental improvement to an article is not centred around a majority-rules vote or popularity contest to see who can come up with the greatest number of sources supporting his assertion, but rather on an effort to create an accurate encyclopedia entry. The mainstream is not "ignoring" the issue any more than the mainstream "ignores" the veracity of alchemy or the technological promise of square wheels or the notion that the sun circles the earth or the idea that disease is caused by an imbalance of bodily humours. Each of these ideas -- just like conversion "therapy" -- is fatally flawed by dint of utter lack of scientific basis. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some editing of this line : Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[3][7][8]

Additionally this one :

Mainstream health organizations in the United States find that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness.

Mainstream? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave out mainstream? Especially since it is highly unlikely that large swathes of the scientific community would assert a treatment as potentially harmful with out studies to back up that assertion. I think this is a case of some bias seeping into the article and it should be reworded to a more neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be more appropriate to omit "mainstream", because it is apposite and accurate. It really, truly is only fringe religionist pseudoscientists and quasidoctors who (mis)represent "conversion therapy" as legitimate and/or effective. You're right that the line in question needed editing, but not for the reason you assert. It needed editing because it did not accurately reflect what the APA source stated. I've addressed that deficiency. Per WP:YESPOV and WP:SPADE, we do not manufacture artificial "balance" where an issue is really and truly lopsided. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting choice of terminology here - religious zealots, fringe religionist pseudoscientists. Not that I'm suggesting any bias exists here, oh no </sarcasm>. 118.208.35.209 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

:While you may not approve of the terms, they do indeed apply, even if the zealot term is not usable in the article.

• (religious) zealot: A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious... ideals (such as those with religious doctorates pretending to be medical doctors to further "therapy" they are not qualified to perform. You have to remember, since it's something they claim is wrong/curable, it's indicative of them stating it's medical/biological in nature; thus making them unqualified and solely uncompromisingly pursuing their religious beliefs under the guise of "curing" people.)

• (religionist) pseudoscientists: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. - since they largely are not trained in any field of science (or medicine) by any accredited institution, and do not follow accepted scientific principles, methods and peer reviews, their activities do fit the very definition of pseudoscience. They "create" an end result and then find "facts" that support it, while excluding other true facts they do not like. Since their motivation is religious in nature, the appendage of "religionist" seems rather appropriate.

You must remember, Wikipedia isn't about portraying things in a good light - it's about portraying things in a fashion that is supported by valid verifiable reliable sources in a way that does not give undue weight to fringe theories (which this most definitely is, as agreed to by virtually every major accredited medical body in the world) and is balanced with proper (ie: more) weight given to the non-fringe theories and abundance of reliable sources from people/institutions qualified to speak on such matters. It's the same reason articles on Hitler aren't "nice" to the article subject.

That's not POV pushing. If it were, we'd have to rewrite articles such as the Flat Earth article to give it equal or larger weight than the "round" earth "theories", as well as remove everything dismissive from true experts in that area. Reality just is... whether you like it or not. Funny thing, I bet you with effort, I could actually cite those terms - but I do not think it appropriate for the article. Now, for the discussion, that's different, as it's simply a discussion of largely prevalent beliefs of people in the true scientific community. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Political opposition

• Spitzer's study has been criticized both on political and methodological grounds. Gay activists argued that the study would be used by conservatives to undermine gay rights.[2]

I assume that gay rights is a political issue. Any reason for disagreement here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim it's a political issue? rpeh •T•C•E• 17:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I make no claim. I merely note that "gay activism" redirects to LGBT social movements, which are described in terms of campaigning and activism for gay rights. Don't you agree that opposing something, on the grounds that it may undermine a political right, is a political objection? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You did make the claim, because you added it to the article. Gay activism is rather different to gay rights: someone can believe in gay rights without being a gay activist, so your point there doesn't work. Gay rights is simply a civil rights issue, and there's no need to drag politics into this. You're trying to add your Conservapedia-style POV here. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I make no claim and no point. If you don't think civil rights issues are "political", I won't argue with you. You're entitled to your opinion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, this is a red herring. The fact is that it was a bad study on ethical and methodological grounds as attested by the sources. You're trying to change the focus of the text to opposition from one group, when the real concern is about the study's flaws. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Spitzer now rejects his own study citing that it's flawed in many ways and doesn't prove anything, so it's now moot as has been claimed since its creation. I just wanted to put this on the record here. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 22:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Past and present

I'd like to change the intro. It says CT "comprises" a whole bunch of things. However, if you read the source, it turns out that the more "cruel" ones were in use (past tense). I wouldn't want the article to give the impression that anyone still uses or advocates these things.

Unless, of course, there is evidence that anyone still uses such cruel methods as "aversive treatments, including the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals, or nausea-inducing drugs, which would be administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli."

Honestly, I thought that sort of thing went out with "A Clockwork Orange". --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

-- Someone needs to add something regarding conversion therapy for asexuality, which is really this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hypoactive_sexual_desire_disorder. But asexuality is being compared to homosexuality as a sort of "sexual preference" and it's beginning to pick up steam as a movement, even though it's really a disorder.

Some of the more barbaric techniques are very much in use, often to children whose health is in the hands of a parent or guardian who thinks the procedures will have a lasting impact.Insomesia (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea where Insomesia is getting his info from. Endorse changing the intro. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reports continue to surface of these techniques being used and they almost always are done to teenagers by the consent of the parents. The parents may mean well, and they may not know all the "aversion" techniques. If you have a reliable source that no one does these techniques then by all means, but I find that hard to believe as there are still professionals willing to do these treatments all over the US and in other countries. Perhaps there is a source that the techniques have gone out of favor? Insomesia (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of changing it. It would make more sense for someone to find a source that states that it's not in use anymore and add a new statement reflecting that. There are fairly recent reports of these things happening, even much worse than the article states in many places around the world. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What would make more sense--and inline with journalistic standards--would be to qualify the content with the date.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be qualified if it's ongoing. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't "need" to be in the article. Whether it is ongoing or not, well written, journalistic content adheres to certain conventions. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea it does. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 04:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I found 'Doctor Shock' charged with sexually abusing male patient: Canadian police investigate dozens of allegations against psychiatrist nicknamed for use of electricity to 'cure' gay soldiers, which implies he stopped doing so in the mid-1990s. This also fits into the narrative that we found out this information not because he was highly publicizing his practices but because people objected to them, and the practitioner trying to "cure" gay men was found to be molesting them. There continues to be fringe activists who want to quarantine all gays, and perform all manner of objectionable treatments and punishments. It's not a reach to see there exists people who believe this works as well as the junk science that's been used to propagate the practice. Insomesia (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead said that conversion therapy is "sometimes called reparative therapy or reorientation therapy". I have simplified that by removing "reorientation therapy." My reasoning is that while a variety of different terms are used for conversion therapy, "reparative therapy" seems to be the only one that is in widespread use. So I don't think it is necessary to mention "reorientation therapy" separately in the lead, as that term seems to be seldom used. Hebradaeum (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Obsolete

Due to recent events concerning Spitzer's disavowal and the current opinion of the medical establishment as of 2012, I've added the update tag to the lead and the obsolete medical theory category. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand how the category applies. Conversion therapy isn't really a "theory". It's a group of different therapeutic practices; these vary in what they involve, and they don't all reflect a single "theory". Also, I really don't understand how Spitzer's recent comments are relevant. Conversion therapy was already supposed to be discredited before he made them, wasn't it? Or do you think it only became discredited when he made his disavowal? Hebradaeum (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the other articles in the category. They're things like Animal magnetism and Homeopathy, and none of them are comparable to conversion therapy at all, so the category really is very misleading. I think that there is enough information in the article to show that Conversion therapy is discredited without the category. Hebradaeum (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the information in the article supports if a category is correct. However it's not a matter if one is there the other isn't, or that the category is precise. Instead I think the categories are whatever is best at the time and as more articles come into a category they divide them into more precise categories. For those following categories all that they may be looking for is well-known medical theories that are now obsolete. I would think there would be a lot of them going back through the history of medicine, though most may not have articles.Insomesia (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The theory is that homosexuals can change orientation. The treatment for the condition of homosexuality is converstion therapy. The cat is for specifically for "theories" not "treatments." Per WP:CAT the cat should be removed. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I mean, there's no real name for the theory besides maybe ignorance or conversion therapy. Theory of conversion. I think it's appropriate because in essence that's what conversion therapy is. Everything involved in it derives from that obsolete theory/treatment. It's one in the same, in my opinion. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 01:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Because categories do not have citations, WP:CAT requires that the rationale for adding a cat be unambiguous and indicated by article content. This is because there is no mechanism for verifying why a particular cat was added. We all agree that CT is not a theory. And adding a cat for "convenience" or because there is no better alternative is clearly prohibited. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I can't agree to separate the term from theory. It's a theory of conversion therapy. There's no other way I can explain it. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't really see separating this article from the theory, they are intertwined although I suppose the two could be surgically split. The theory is that anyone can willfully change their sexual orientation, and this article contains that information as well as a history of these efforts.Insomesia (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that we shouldn't be calling something a medical theory unless there is a reliable source calling it that, and so far as I know there is no source saying that there is a medical theory called "conversion therapy." Hebradaeum (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the history section be it's own article?

It seems very very very long. I basically ignored it as I'm guessing will many readers.Insomesia (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The history section is very long. It's also quite bad, and full of irrelevant details that aren't likely to be of use to readers. Perhaps instead of turning it into an article, it might be a better idea to cut it back a little. Hebradaeum (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think even a lot of trimming would still leave it way too long for this article though. I would expect a shortened summary. I'm not saying the new article would be great in any way, just that this article would become better for the process with just the summary instead of all the irrelevancies.Insomesia (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right. Anyway, I think the history section could be trimmed back, either a little or a lot. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into what should be here and perhaps work backwards from there.Insomesia (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

The lead of this page says, "The American Psychiatric Association states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation 'by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue'." I looked up the source, and it seems to be a dead link; it just connects to a page with an error message. Can someone fix this? I'm not sure how to do it. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Auric (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Someone changed the lead to make it say that Conversion therapy " is controversial a type of sexual orientation change effort " [sic]. The "controversial" part isn't necessary. Anyone can see it is controversial. I think that edit should be reverted. Hebradaeum (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is controversial, hard to see it as anything but fringe and rejected by the mainstream. I think it should be added back in. Perhaps we state that mainstream health providers and society find it controversial but it is accepted by some conservative religious groups. Insomesia (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right - it is hard to see it as anything but fringe, but that's exactly why we don't need the actual word "controversial." It adds nothing. Hebradaeum (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Its stated in the very next sentence so I agree it doesn't need to be re-added to the first sentence. Insomesia (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Reparative therapy

Stalik added this to the section on reparative therapy: "Some theraupetic approaches of Nicolosi also include usage of pornography." It is possible that what Stalik's addition asserts is correct. Unfortunately, however, the source Stalik used is a blog posting. Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, with good reason. They have no independent mechanisms for fact-checking and no reputation for general reliability or veracity. This information could go back in if a proper source can be found, but without such a source it must stay out. Suggesting that someone is using pornography in therapy based on a blog posting may violate Wikipedia's BLP policy, and is potentially defamatory. Hebradaeum (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems with introductory sentence

Hi all. I've taken a look at the sources used in this article, and I see some problems. The first sentence of the article reads, "Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, is a type of sexual orientation change effort that attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual." The trouble with that is that the source used does not say that. What it says, in full, is, "For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA's concern about the position's [sic] espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our futher concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish." There is nothing there that says that conversion therapy is sometimes called reparative therapy, that it is a type of sexual orientation change effort, and that it attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the introductory sentence is an important part of the article, and I don't want to try to change it without discussion, but I thought I should point out that there is a problem with it. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Since no one replied, I've gone ahead and replaced the reference with a citation needed tag. Hebradaeum (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Obsolete medical theory

I have removed the "obsolete medical theory" category. No references have been provided that state that conversion therapy is specifically an "obsolete medical theory", so the category was unsupported. Note that in order for conversion therapy to be an "obsolete medical theory", it would first of all have to be a "medical theory" of some or any kind (in the same sense in which, say, the germ theory of disease is a medical theory). I consider such view to be far-fetched, and in any event there are no references supporting it. Hebradaeum (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Why did an editor change "aims" to "purports" in the lead? The American Psychological Association says "aims", and that term does not mean the same thing as "purports". Hebradaeum (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Purport

About this, I did change one of the "purport" instances to "claim", but not the same one that was previously changed. That was my mistake. As it stands right now, with both changed, it's the way it ought to be. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't fix what ain't broken

End of discussion when talking about 'reparative' therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.159.14.62 (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"pray away the gay"

Someone is trying to insert a mention of the fact that conversion therapy is "derided by critics as pray away the gay" in the lead. I'm going to keep on removing that, because Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia and not a dumping ground for every random trivial fact that might interest someone. There is quite enough scientific criticism of conversion therapy in the lead - there's no need for silly, vulgar, and totally unscientific criticisms of it. Hebradaeum (talk)

It is absolutely NOT trivia. In fact, it is arguably the most common term for this practice. I suspect that a large number of our readers know this as "pray away the gay" and don't actually known that they call it conversion therapy - the reason is because the term conversion therapy says absolutely nothing about what it actually tries to do, so the descriptive (even if insulting) term is better known. When I was trying to find this article, I actually search for "pray the gay away", and was stuck with a article on a TV episode that has the title (which, by the way, is about conversion therapy). Very common terms like this belong in the lede - it is in no way "trivia".

You have no evidence at all that it's the most common term. So stop adding it. Hebradaeum (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My two-pence, is it belongs in the article, but not in the lead as per undue-weight or my interpretation of. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A Google search shows that this term is very common: (https://www.google.com/search?q=pray+away+the+gay&aq=f&oq=pray+away+the+gay&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) For example, this ABCNews article (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/02/pray-away-the-gay/) says "pray away the gay" first, and conversion therapy second. This article (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UGodqJjA_nh) doesn't even mention the term Conversion Therapy. So, evidence is pretty strong that this is a very common term. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to base article content on Google searches. The fact is that "pray away the gay" is not a scientific term, and it doesn't belong in a serious article (oh, and ABCNews is not a scientific source). This is not the "Conversion therapy in popular culture" article. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason "Pray the gay away" should redirect here. It should redirect instead to the episode of the TV program actually called "Pray the gay away". DUH! Hebradaeum (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The TV episode was named after the idea that one could pray away the gay, an euphemism for Conversion therapy. Pray away the gay is correctly aimed at this article not the TV episode named after the euphemism. Insomesia (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How would you know what the TV episode was named after, or that those who named it believed "pray away the gay" meant the same thing as conversion therapy? Even if it were true that the Pray away the gay TV episode was named after what its producers believed was a term for conversion therapy, that still wouldn't be a good reason for redirecting "pray away the gay" here. Common sense suggests that people searching for "pray away the gay" will be looking for the TV episode. I don't see any evidence to the contrary at all. Hebradaeum (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, "pray away the gay" isn't a "euphemism", as you wrongly suggest. It's a slang expression. Hebradaeum (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you expect all criticisms to be scientific? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't. But it's reasonable for an article in what claims to be a serious encyclopedia to focus on the scientific criticisms of conversion therapy, and not on the way conversion therapy has been ridiculed in popular culture. Giving the popular culture stuff equally status with scientific criticism does rather imply that scientific criticism isn't really needed, which is an unfortunate kind of message. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)