Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Mediation

Due to the recurring disputes concerning this article I strongly recommend the active editors engage in mediation. Please see WP:MEDCAB.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed lead

An uninvolved editor has posted this text in the lead:

• Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. According to Aesthetic Realism, art and artistry can be used as a model for philosophical understanding: the innate aesthetic appreciation that all humans have for the world can be balanced against the innate tendencies towards contempt that people feel towards specific objects and events the way an artist balances good and bad elements in artwork, resolving the implicit conflict. Aesthetic Realism has been criticized as being cult-like, primarily with respect to its central foundation, but this assessment is contested.

Is there any objection to this text? How can it be improved without making it much longer?   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start. I would break the second sentence in two for readability. Jonathunder (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good start. It's not exact. Let me work on it and I'll post something here later before posting. LoreMariano (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Without making it much longer, but keeping to the latest outline of ideas:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.Its primary teachings include the study of how art answers, in outline, the questions of life. "All beauty," Eli Siegel stated, "is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves." Aesthetic Realism states that the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis, and that the desire for contempt, the "addition to self through the lessening of something else," is the cause of all injustice. According to Aesthetic Realism, contempt takes ordinary forms, such as boredom, but it is also the cause of the greatest cruelty between people, including racism and even war.

Critics allege that, while Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.

I think the "allegations of a cult" sentences should be placed at the end of the article under that heading. Someone added a whole new paragraph on that subject (last sentences of article) without any discussion. I strongly object to the sentences and the underhanded method with which they were slipped in and request that whoever added them please revert until consensus is reached. LoreMariano (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't think it's worth worrying about other people's behavior. fix it when it happens and start a discussion, is my view.

With respect to this version, I think it looks good up until the last line. it's generally not a good idea to use terms like 'smear' unless they appear inside direct quotes, because people who disagree with you will take it as an attempt at asserting a POV. could we say something like "Proponents say that Aesthetic Realism is a scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity."? --Ludwigs2 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a third-party, secondary source that we can use as the basis of the intro?   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this during (work day) work hours. Let me see what I can do this weekend. In the meantime, while we work on something new, is it okay to post the above opening, with Ludwigs2 edit? Also, Will, can you please cite a Wikipedia article (preferably on philosophy) that conforms with what you're looking for in terms of style/structure? LoreMariano (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposed text is ideal either, especially the last paragraph. Let's see what we kind find by way of a summary by a 3rd-party source and use that as the basis.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really want to revert but what was there was not exact. Let's continue to work this weekend on a lead everyone can agree on. I'll post a new suggestion here by Sunday. Can someone tell me how to start a new page so that we don't have to scroll down to the bottom of this very long page? LoreMariano (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Before we start on a new lead let's find a good source first.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've set up autoarchiving. It may take a day for the bot to arrive.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why other sources are needed for the lead when Eli Siegel wrote "Self and World: an Explanation of Aesthetic Realism" and it's available online? It's at the website of the Aesthetic Realism Online Library. He is the person who stated the principles of Aesthetic Realism and explained what they mean. Wouldn't that be the most accurate source for a short description of the philosophy in the lead? Nathan43 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at Wikipedia's guidelines for the lead paragraph of an article; maybe I don't understand the rules... Nathan43 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Siegel's book or article is a primary source. We wouldn't based our article on Christianity on the sayings of Jesus Christ, or our article on Stalinism on the writings of Joseph Stalin, though in both cases we might quote them to support a statement made in a secondary source. . (Note: nothing is meant by those comparisons.) This article is currently lacking in independent secondary sources. Most seriously, that calls the notability of the topic into question. Assuming notability is achieved, if we can only find a small amount of info on AR in secondary sources, then we should only say a little about the topic. That's why secondary sourcesare so important, and why it's pointless to spend time talking about the article until we've found the best available sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. That link goes to the section of rules I'd been looking at. I understand what you are saying about Christ and Stalin, (and I'm not asking you to respond to this comment) but I wonder if that also applies to scientists such as Newton and Robert Boyle? After all, we're talking about a system of principles that can be tested, not a religion or a political theory. In any case, I appreciate the feedback AND thanks for shortening this page! Nathan43 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a biography, so the comparisons to Boyle and Newton are inapt. This isn't really a scientific theory either, so far as I'm aware, so a comparison to gravity or calculus would also be inapt. This article is equally about the philosophy and the foundation that studies or nurtures it. The closest comparison I can think of would be if we joined the the Wikipedia articles on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Objectivist movement, and then scaled them down by a factor of 10 in light of how little secondary coverage there is. Those articles have about 5500 and 4700 words respectively. However those articles have dozens of secondary sources, and probably more are available but they're using only the best. By comparison, before th recent flurry of editing this article was about 3500 words long, with very few inline citations and almost no independent sources. Can we write a comprehensive article that's closer to 1000 words? The place to start is by finding the best sources first, and then summarizing what they say.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bluejay, the AR folks did not cut the intro. Will Beback, who we've all looked to for moderation and Wiki policy, did. He did that so we could edit a new intro together on the talk page. We're working on it a bit at a time, to avoid contentiousness and edit wars. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. I cut it because it had become a battleground with non-NPOV text being added without prior discussion. I urge all involved editors to work towards consensus to prevent a recurrence.   Will Beback  talk  14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. The AR people *have* cut the intro, several times, as the History clearly shows. And prior to WillBeback's own recent removal, the AR folks censored the intro repeatedly in the past. They've done it before, they're doing it now. WillBeback simply provided some cover for them to do so recently, which they've eagerly employed. The reason for cutting the intro was ostensibly so a consensus could be worked out, but are they working on that? No. Not for a good week. During this time they've made certain to repeatedly censor the article "until consensus is reached", while making no effort to actually reach consensus. If they do return to the discussion they will drag it out as long as possible so that the censored intro remains as long as possible. They fought long and hard to keep allegations of cult behavior and the gay cure out of the article, and especially out of the intro, so this is a huge win for them -- and a loss for WP and readers who come to the article expecting a good summary of the subject. As for coming to a consensus, even if the AR people would discuss it now, they've made it clear that they won't be reasonable. e.g., They strenuously object to highlighting the things that AR is best known for. Since they won't dialogue reasonably (or even at all), I'm putting in a more proper intro. And since the AR people have cut even the old consensus intro I tried to restore, I'll now put in a better-written intro, based on the intro for the Scientology article, below. MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy created by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. In 1973 Siegel's students founded the Aesthetic Realism Foundation to teach the philosophy. Aesthetic Realists believe that most of the world's problems could be solved by the study of Aesthetic Realism, which is based on these principles:

1. The deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
2. The greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it. Contempt can be defined as the lessening of what is different from oneself as a means of self-increase as one sees it.
3. All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.

The Foundation is based in SoHo in New York City and teaches Aesthetic Realism through lectures, classes, and "consultations", in which three advanced students called "consultants" meet with another student.

Aesthetic Realism is controversial for its claim that it can change gay people to straight, and for allegations that it operates as a mind-control cult.

Mr. Bluejay. I think your draft was getting closer to being inclusive and NPOV. Please just post it on the talk page first. Though wiki policy certainly suggests you should be bold, it can be counterproductive for controversial articles; literally, it can make the situation worse. If you put a draft like that here, then we can tweak imprecise language, add and source appropriate criticisms, and deal with policy questions. I've re-posted your edit below with my own changes:

---

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy created by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. Aesthetic Realists believe that root of humankind's problems--personal unhappiness, family conflicts, social strife, poverty, racism, and war--can be understood and resolved by the study of Aesthetic Realism, which is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it--contempt defined as lessening what is different from oneself as a means to make the self seem more important. And third, all beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what people are truly seeking.

These teachings are promoted by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, a non-profit organization based in SoHo, New York City through a variety of lectures, classes, art events, and "consultations", in which individual students meet with three teachers called "consultants".

Throughout the history of the organization, Aesthetic Realists have criticized the lack of recognition of their philosophy in mainstream press. Although Aesthetic Realism was well received within artistic, aesthetic, anthropological, and pedagogical circles, it never received widespread attention or endorsement by the media, psychologists, or academic philosophers.

Aesthetic Realism has been controversial for the claim that it could change gay people's sexual orientation by teaching them to perceive and like the world "as it is". The organization has also been accused by some ex-students and researchers for operating as a cult. Aesthetic Realists have responded that the homosexuality issue is a part of their past not central to the philosophy, and that the accusations of being a cult are based on lies.

---

Thoughts? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if IP 71 knows the history with the lead and the use of numbered points versus paragraph format. The matter was discussed and debated at length and finally submitted in a Request for Comments by Wikipedia editors. After much discussion, the consensus was that we should not use bullet points or numbered paragraphs in the lead (this was not my preference).

The lead is supposed to arise from a properly sourced article and that is where our attention is now being focused. As requested, I have been reviewing many sources to back up the text of the article and it is not a quick process. I don't at all wish to slow down the editing and I expect that we can work through each heading with a fair amount of speed and ease. If all goes well, I will post at least one, hopefully two, section(s) each week for consideration. LoreMariano (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it's just formatting. I've incorporated the changes above. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I *did* post my intro suggestion on this page. The AR people are still reverting without discussing. It's simply not acceptable for the intro to not mention what AR is notable for in the meantime. Your version of the intro is acceptable to me and I'm posting it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and another one of them User:Keravnos has just done reverted without discussion again. I will be returning the previous introduction forthwith, for the following reasons: the lede of an article is a summary of its contents. As such, it must mention all substantive topics covered by that article. This certainly includes the best documented content, and the reason for whatever limited fame Aesthetic Realism has, which is its claim that it makes gay men straight, which citation to reliable sources here on the talk page and in the article are certainly well established. It also includes the documented cult allegations. Whatever wording changes the AR's want to make should be worked out on the talk page, not by reversions to an inadequate opening that does not appropriately summarize the article. This means, of course, that they cannot by dint of numbers exclude information from the lede, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to work based on how many supporters you can recruit to edit an article - even with an appearance of violating the rules of conflict of interest - but on adherence to Wikipedia's standards, which means including all documented points of view, and faithfully summarizing an article's contents in its lede. - Outerlimits (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

and he's reverted without discussion again. I'll leave a note at his talk page, pointing out that this is unacceptable, and then revert back. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MBJ, you posted it, Lore responded, I made changes... let that repeat a few times. You and Outerlimits have done battle for years with the ARists. I don't know what will make this article better, but I have a feeling that sources and gradual edits will be a big part of it, and edit wars won't. Again, the ARists DID NOT stub the intro. Will Beback did, because we couldn't come up with an NPOV paragraph, which we're working on right here. It is NOT a "victory" for the ARists to have a stubbed intro. It is a mere detente, a ceasefire, so that we find a replacement. I'm aware that consensus on several points has been resisted by the ARists, but it's possible that fighting fire with fire won't help. So we:

• 1. Stub the intro
• 2. Collect sources
• 3. Attempt to find consensus about the intro on the talk page
• 4. If so, great
• 5. If not, address paragraphs from the article itself which are the subject of controversy
• 6. Fix those paragraphs (through discussion, mediation, RfC or RfA)
• 7. Repeat
• 8. If fixing any of the underlying paragraphs is not possible, then stub those parts
• 9. Repeat until the article is either stably written or stably stubbed

We're on #3 right now. If you want to make an edit, at least propose it on talk and let it sit for a day so people can respond. As long as the draft is getting better, what's the problem? If we get a solid draft, and there's still unreasonable resistance, we'll just take it to an RfC.

Also, if possible, I'd like to keep this draft towards the bottom of the page, where people can find it more easily. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Assuming the merge doesn't happen (and I don't think it should), I think we need a disambiguation header to redirect and inform readers who are looking for articles about realism in the academic disciplines of philosophy and aesthetics that this page is about something different. Even though "aesthetic realism" is eli siegel's meta-philosophy, the subjects of both aesthetics and realism and even realism applied to aesthetics is common within philosophical and artistic writings. (See this link: [1] 71.224.206.164 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is another significant meaning of "aesthetic realism" that merits an article then a disambiguation would be helpful. While I've seen the term in other contexts I'm not sure that it refers to a consistent concept. Are there any existing Wikipedia articles that cover the alternate topic(s) already?   Will Beback  talk  13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• [2] wiki realism disambig
• [3] journal article about the 2 uses of the terms
• [4] academic paper titled aesthetic realism not about siegel's philosophy

Some might see this as an attempt to downplay the significance of the philosophy. i don't mean it derisively... but the fact is that siegel's philosophy is either a variant within the current academic discourse or it is completely apart from it; either way, the disambiguation seems pertinent

Somewhat more broadly, i think the above discussion is instructive for the tone of this article as well; it has to maintain the distinction between Siegel's AR view of what makes something beautiful and a broadly accepted "scientific" theory of aesthetics.'what AR teaches as scientifically true may be true to their standards or satisfaction, but the rest of academia just doesn't concur; while we should present Siegel's views in full, this article needs to reflect the difference. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Trouver, please don't intersperse your comments in the middle of other comments. For talk page etiquette, see WP:TPG.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(I've extracted Trouver's annoying interspersed replies from others' comments above and listed them separately below.) MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary. [In response to the prospect of a disambiguation header.]

Eli Siegel was the originator of the term [Aesthetic Realism]. His was the only use of the term for more than 40 years. The term was known during that time period both in the US and England. Recent users of the term, with a completely different "take" on the meaning of aesthetics and realism, had no right to arrogate the term to themselves and should have had the scholarly decency to come up with a new one of their own.

[About the suggestion that Eli Siegel's Aesthetic Realism is a variant of the aesthetic realism that is discussed in modern academics.] No--[Eli Siegel's version] preceded [the modern version] by decades, as the article in the British Journal of Aesthetics explains. (By the way, I am not Dr. Green, the author of this article.)

No. There have been several PhD theses in which Aesthetic Realism is a central method; dozens of peer-reviewed scholarly articles; and hundreds of papers at academic conferences.

c'est pour rire! There is NO "broadly accepted theory of aesthetics" at present. Aesthetic Realism does offer a hypothesis that many scholars, who have tested it, do indeed see as scientifically true.

Please. Again, the very existence of several doctoral theses and dozens of peer-reviewed essays indicates that scholars who are NOT affiliated with Aesthetic Realism have "passed on" the statements of authors who see Aesthetic Realism as true, and have said: YES, we concur--this meets scholarly standards.

What about those just mentioned who OKd PhDs or journal essays? To talk about "the rest of academia" agreeing about ANYTHING is hilarious! Trouver (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the moderation, Will, but I don't personally mind the formatting. I do find fault with the argument. The purpose of a disambiguation is to resolve any potential misunderstanding on the part of the reader. Since aesthetics and realism are both common domains of philosophy and they have overlapped and been applied to eachother throughout the historical and current discourse, a disambiguation could be helpful.

Saying that: This article refers to Eli Siegel's philosophy called "Aesthetic Realism". See aesthetics for the general field; realism in the arts, realism in theater, or realism in visual arts for specific applications of realism; and realism for other uses of the term... is appropriate. While Siegel's AR may be novel, it in no way owns the concepts of aesthetics or realism, and it is critical that the reader understands that aesthetic realism is a broadly construed term, of which Eli Siegel's usage has a specific meaning. The discussion of aesthetics goes back at least as far as Kant and Hume, if not all the way to Plato and biblical scholars, and that's not even considering non-western sources. I agree that there is no "broadly accepted theory of aesthetics"; that is why the argument that multiple meanings exist supports the notion of a disambiguation.

The fact that several papers identify aesthetic realism as "true" doesn't mean the entire scientific or artistic or philosophical community agrees. While I concur that unanimity is an unrealistic benchmark for consensus, Siegel's Aesthetic Realism isn't even taught in University philosophy departments. That renders the theory somewhat peripheral (even if it's true), and the page should reflect that.

Tangentially, when you say, "Aesthetic Realism does offer a hypothesis that many scholars, who have tested it, do indeed see as scientifically true", how are their tests verifiable or experimentally valid? What is their data? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

71, thank you for the academic perspective you bring. I agree that a disambiguation header is called for, exactly for the reasons you suggest. If the AR devotees didn't have such knee-jerk reactions to non-AR people's ideas, they'd see that disambiguation is *good* for them, because it identifies Eli Siegel's Aesthetic Realism as something special and different from the aesthetic realism that's discussed elsewhere. But whatever. It's diplomatic that you don't mind interspersed comments, but I do, and more importantly, interspersing just isn't acceptable on WP. And finally, LoreMariano thinks she has found a trick to censor mention of AR's cult characteristics from the intro: Remove them until "consensus" can be found. I rather think it works the other way: The old version which was here for years is the default version, until consensus overrules that precedent. As such, I'm adding back the old intro, until consensus is reached otherwise. MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I dug up the old intro, but it's terrible, so I created a new one. The Aesthetic Realists will object because it mentions the things that AR is controversial for, but that's to be expected. They're never reasonable. MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've undone MichaeBluejay's one sided introduction. Please do not edit without consensus. Keravnos (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MichaelBluejay hasn't been in the loop for a while so to bring him up-to-date: I am not trying to fool anyone, in fact, someone slipped in a whole new paragraph regarding allegations of a cult which I haven't removed. There has been a lot of discussion about edits made without proper sources and we are currently in the process of reviewing secondary sources. The plan is to fix the article, using independent secondary sources, then write the lead. I will post the proposed text for the first heading (with sources) this weekend. LoreMariano (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's just one example of academic use of the term "aesthetic realism", which I presume is unrelated to Siegel's use: "Twentieth Century American Literature: ... We will begin our inquiry at the turn of the last century in an attempt to understand the relationship between the end of the civil war, patterns of immigration/migration and the emergence of aesthetic realism." (University of Washington) MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MBJ, I found several tens if not hundreds of them. Many are listed on the criticial sources sub-page linked on this page's header. Do you think the current disambiguation is lacking something?71.224.206.164 (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting the intro

DRAFT
Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy created by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. Aesthetic Realists believe that the root of humankind's problems--personal unhappiness, family conflicts, social strife, poverty, racism, and war--can all be understood and resolved by the study of Aesthetic Realism, which is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it--contempt defined as lessening what is different from oneself as a means to make the self seem more important. And third, all beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what people are truly seeking.

These teachings are promoted by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, a non-profit organization based in SoHo, New York City through a variety of lectures, classes, art events, and "consultations", in which individual students meet with three teachers called "consultants".

Throughout the history of the organization, Aesthetic Realists have criticized the lack of recognition of their philosophy in mainstream press. Although Aesthetic Realism was well received within artistic, aesthetic, anthropological, and pedagogical circles, it never received widespread attention or endorsement by the media, psychologists, or academic philosophers.

Aesthetic Realism has been controversial for the claim that it could change gay people's sexual orientation by teaching them to perceive and like the world "as it is". The organization has also been accused by some ex-students and researchers for operating as a cult. Aesthetic Realists have responded that the homosexuality issue is a part of their past not central to the philosophy, and that the accusations of being a cult are based on lies.

Are there specific criticisms...

• with content?
• with sourcing?
• with language?
• with excluded topics?
• with anything else...

Please discuss them here. I will also revert adding this to the main page without letting it improve on the talk page for at least a few days. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let's hold discussion on the lead until the article itself has been sourced, as was suggested some time ago. It's hard to work seriously on both at once. Nathan43 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but since Lore is taking some time (totally understandably) to work on a version, I think we could approach both. While the intro should reflect the article, if we have sources for the intro, I don't see why we can't do both. Will, could we set up additional draft spaces, even a page for each section, sources, categories, etc. and list them as links in the talk header? This talk page gets a little messy to do collaborative editing.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this Intro draft? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to work on the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the article, until we know what will be included in the article. It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse. LoreMariano (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the request, I've placed a link to Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts at the top of the page. However I'll repeat my earlier suggestion that work on the lead is probably best delayed until the necessary improvements to the article are made.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up the page, Will. I don't mind waiting on the lead, although I think it could be useful as an outline. I'll continue to work on it on the draft page, and if it is useful later, then great. I'd still like to hear specific responses to its content and language, since I am hoping that it struck the right balance between presentation and objectivity. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

71, you're not listening to me. Your saying, "Again, the ARists DID NOT stub the intro. Will Beback did...." misses the point that the AR people have reverted to the stubbed version, repeatedly, every single time I try to post a legitimate intro. Yes WillBeback stubbed it, too, providing them the kind of cover for their censorship they could previously only dream of. Before Will handed them the golden ticket, they engaged in the same sort of censorship for years. And now the article has been locked down to the censored version. This is a *huge* victory for them, as a censored version that doesn't mention the controversial things that AR is known for, is precisely what they wanted all along. Don't think there's not celebrating going on about this at 141 Greene Street. And it's no coincidence that they don't want the intro addressed until everything else is addressed, because the longer they can drag out the process, the longer the censored version will remain. Working on a rewrite is a smokescreen in any event, because they've made it clear repeatedly over the years that they don't think the cult allegations or the gay cure should be part of the article, or if so then those bits should be buried and neutered beyond all reason. The admins around here are playing right into their hands. We used to be able to count on them to help us ensure that articles were fair and encyclopaedic. Now they're joining in with the censorship and even locking the censored version into place -- both over the objection of at least two other long-time editors. It's pretty sad. MichaelBluejay (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. "If you want to make an edit, at least propose it on talk and let it sit for a day so people can respond." Are you *** kidding me?! I have been posting my drafts and the AR people are reverting without discussing. They don't want to discuss, they want to censor. MichaelBluejay (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But that just turns this article into a crossfire. You have many reasons to doubt the truthfulness and intentions of AR; they also make you an unlikely person to be able to edit this article without a lot of emotion. What you have done exceedingly well is bring attention to criticism of the organization through your website. This article can reflect those criticisms--and it should--but I don't think your proactive edits are going to help that happen faster. If we need to get this article protected, or go through RfC, RfA, edit sanctions, etc. we can pursue that, but would you consider first letting the section-by-section re-writes go forward with a focus on sources, npov, and an encyclopedic tone?

Secondarily, your concerns about white-washing are lessened while there's a giant disputed tag on the mainpage and ample discussion of cults, homosexuality, etc. within these public talk pages. Also, the article currently does mention both homosexuality and cults--just not in the intro--because it was decided to finish the body first. In sum, you might be right, but it won't help this article unless you want to either engage dispassionately, or pursue formal requests for admin oversight. I prefer trying the first... though, you've been at this a while longer.

On the merits of who is reverting, resisting consensus, etc. I think there was a tacit understanding amongst Lore, BKSJ and myself to take Will's stubbing as a temporary semi-protection. It might have been clearer for you if the page had just been locked--but it is now anyway.71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly, with just about all of the above. There is zero reason the old intro should not remain while we're (supposedly) hashing out a new one. And there is certainly not consensus that the censored version should be locked into place. At least I and Outerlimits object to that. If the article is to be rewritten from scratch, fine, but in the meantime, the article should contain a reasonable Intro, since it's the most important part of the article. (And no, mentions of critical points elsewhere on the article and on the Talk page is absolutely not the same thing, not by a longshot.) As for the Dispute tag lessening the damage, are you kidding me? How exactly does the existence of a Dispute tag tell the reader that AR is primarily known for its gay cure and for claims that it's a cult? In any event, the article is locked, so my hands are tied. And the AR people are *still* not discussing the intro. As I've said repeatedly, they love the fact that the intro is censored, and they'll drag this process out as long as possible to keep it that way. I'm disappointed that you and Will are giving them the cover they need for that. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The old intro got stubbed because it was already the subject of an edit-war. The solution to that war was to freeze the intro in a non-controversial form, and because consensus could not be reached about what points to include and how to phrase them, the least controversial form was simply the shortest.

While the intro is the most visible part of an article, Wiki policy as well as standard editing practices suggest that intros merely summarize content which is presented in the body of writing; since we are currently working on the body, it is not unreasonable to use a short-form introduction merely as a place-holder.

I was not suggesting that there was a true consensus about stubbing the intro, and even if there was, I'm aware you and outerlimits weren't part of it.

I suggest, if you are interested in focusing on the homosexuality and cult aspects, which you have already done a good deal of research on, that you begin drafting those sections or at least gathering sources that could be used on Wikipedia. Quotes and excerpts are helpful, as are citations and links. Make the most comprehensive collection of references you can find, and work to present it in an iron-clad, encyclopedic, npov format. You might not avoid resistance from all editors, but it will allow us to proceed with sound editing and further administrative actions if needed as a last resort.

Seriously, just keep drafting the parts that you think are important. I can't speak for Will, but I'm absolutely not interested in providing cover for anyone, and I won't be satisfied unless the issues you mention are included as much as they can be reliably sourced, in an article that has a tone neutral from anyone's perspective. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed already added some sources to a Sources subpage. I started working on a draft of the Gay Cure section, but then I found this in the WP policy on subpages: "Disallowed uses [of subpages]: Writing drafts of major article revisions". Unless I'm missing something, our Drafts subpage is not allowed. MichaelBluejay (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That refers to subpages in the main namespace, eg "Article/draft". The pages we're using are in the talk namespace, eg "talk:Article/draft". Those are fine.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the policy is geared towards avoiding: 'shadow articles' or 'forks' that co-exist alongside main articles; and the risk that the editing process will be somewhat hidden from the community. I recommend that we basically ignore this rule while making an attempt to alert editors on the talk page to the process that we are undertaking and trying to keep the editing process focused on moving drafts to the mainpage as soon as possible. I think the departure is reasonable because of the relatively consistent editor-base, the ease of adding a warning to the talk page, the contentious history of this article, and the current block on the mainpage--which renders editing anywhere else an unreasonable mishmash of discussion and writing. In fact, I was thinking of asking Will to make more draft pages, so we can progress more quickly on individual sections. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, it seems the relevant policy you're quoting is mainly concerned with subpages rather than workpages. Subpage is the general category which includes workpages, but the policy variously supports different uses of each. They were considered in the early 2000's as an alternate to the category scheme which currently organizes pages. While they were discouraged and ultimately prohibited for use in the mainspace, they have continued to be permitted and useful on both userpages and talk pages. Particularly relevant is WP:Workpage I added {workpage} templates to the sub-pages here. It's mainly a precaution in case someone accidentally links to the page. Otherwise, I think we're covered. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Un-block date nears

So, before the editing block goes up on the 14th, I thought we could try to figure out an editing plan so we don't all just go edit-warring. I added a to-do list to the talk-header, which you can edit just like a normal article. It might sound a little preachy as I added some basic editing policy links, but the real purpose is to give us a place for a nuts-and-bolts stuff we can actually do, cross off, and get posted to the main page.

Meanwhile, a question? Do we want the block removed yet? Or would it be better to work on the drafts and have an admin transfer individual pieces as we find consensus? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote to maintain the block.Keravnos (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm content to leave the block unofficially, if that makes any sense. It's really under 10 people (at most) who are regularly editing this page, and I think as long as most of us agree to discuss things before making edits it will be helpful. There's a possible downside--as has been pointed out--that people could 'delay' the rewrite or refuse to address certain controversial points under the guise of 'no-consensus'. I hope that won't be an issue, but even if it is, I think the tactic is to bring in more, outside, administrative opinions rather than just go back and forth on the mainpage.

Lore and I have worked over the last week to rewrite the first body paragraph; though it doesn't cover anything inflammatory, I think it was a good test of making the material both factually accurate and also neutral. Our basic strategy was to explain any terms in language that an unfamiliar reader would understand, and if paraphrasing was not an available option then to just use a direct quotation. I don't see why this wouldn't work for other sections, provided the critical sources are given due weight.

One intermediate strategy might be to take on a more controversial paragraph next. Though it wouldn't be exactly chronological, I don't see why we couldn't tackle Victim of the Press before focusing on Aesthetic Realism's take on poetry. Or both at the same time. 71.224.204.226 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would rather do poetry and history together, then racism and homosexuality together. The victim of the press section will grow out of the history section. Let's try to get through poetry and history in the next week, then move to the tougher sections. I will post something here for the first section shortly. LoreMariano (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DRAFT: Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy (2/7, 2/17, 2/20)

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy

Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful. Eli Siegel defined beauty as the making one, or unity, of opposites.[44][45]

In Siegel's critical theory of art, a good poem is both logical and passionate at once.[46] Logic embodies order while passion accentuates freedom. His studies led him to conclude that any successful work of art or music combines essential dualities. In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel developed this concept, writing that the arts and sciences all give evidence that reality has an aesthetic nature[41][42][43][44][45] He envisioned the world sharing the quality of construction characteristic to good poems; it too, is composed of opposites. In Siegel's eyes, freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[47] Siegel also asked, "since a beautiful poem is one and many, and reality is one and many, isn't this evidence too that reality is beautiful and can be liked the way we like a good poem?"[48]

This idea led to Siegel's primary belief, that the world "can be liked honestly". Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is "every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." [5]

But Siegel recognized another competing desire which drives humans away from such an appreciation—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important.[49][50][51] Siegel argued that when a person seeks self-esteem through contempt--"the addition to self through lessening something else"--he or she is unjust to people and things.[49] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem like a triumph, but ultimately results in self-dislike[1] and mental distress,[56] and in doing so, lessens the capacity of one's mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Siegel held that, in the extreme, contempt causes insanity.[57][58]

Aesthetic Realism attests that one’s attitude to the world governs how all of life's components are seen: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone.[53][54] Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people, not devalue them in order to make oneself seem more important. Aesthetic Realism states that conscious intention to be fair to the world and people is not only an ethical obligation, but the means of liking oneself.[59][60][61]

The philosophy identifies contempt as the underlying cause of broader social problems as well: societal evils like racism and war arise from contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, or nationality. Siegel stated that for centuries ill will has been the predominant purpose in humanity's economic activities. The philosophy asserts that humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people cease to feel that “the world’s failure or the failure of a[nother] person enhances one’s own life.” Siegel stated that until good will rather than contempt is at the center of economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.”[52]

71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lore and I (71) worked over the last week and a half to put this together and really tighten up the language. I hope (we both do) that it comes across as faithful to the letter and spirit of the philosophy as well as completely objective and appropriately dispassionate. This should be one of the easier sections to edit, but if you have any issues, please list them here (or edit the draft directly, preferably after discussion). The numbers in the title are just dates (draft started, posted to talk, posted to mainpage).

• should the section be titled 'Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy' or just 'The Philosophy'?
• are the citations accurate?
• is it ready to post on the main page?

Moving philosophy draft to the mainpage.

Well, not too surprisingly, no one cares about starting a big edit war until we get to the exciting parts. So, I'm going to post this to the mainpage, and if there are minor issues we can work them out later.

The next section Lore and I are working on is the Poetry section. Still pretty uncontroversial, but to the extent that we include praise about the poetry, I'd like to reference alternate, critical views. So if you know of any sources that reference Siegel's poetry, or it's relationship to Aesthetic Realism in a critical way, this might be the section in which to incorporate it (I'd ask for positive commentary as well, but Keravnos and others already collected a lot of it). 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing the article again

71 appears to be MIA. (S)he was the only independent editor working on the section-by-section rewrite, so without him/her, I intend to put a proper encyclopedic intro into this article. Yes, I know the AR people will object that there's not "consensus" to do so (since the AR people will obviously never consent to the more unflattering aspects of AR being presented), but they should remember that there is certainly no consensus to keep a proper intro *out* of the article. At least Outerlimits and I agree that the article should have a proper intro now. If 71 returns, I'll agree to go back to his tedious method of rewriting the whole article from scratch before we tackle the intro. But so long as s/he's absent, the article should have a proper intro. MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there was never a good excuse to eviscerate the lede in the first place. If any changes are needed in the introduction because of changes in the article, they should be made only after those changes - changes which have been slow to appear, and which may never occur. The purpose of the lede is to reflect the contents of the current article, not those of some postulated future article. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, surely you are aware that you are vandalizing this article in presuming to edit it as you see fit. Many writers have been working diligently in coming to a fair representation of the philosophy Aesthetic Realism. You do many people a large disservice in pursuing this road. Perhaps, you should reconsider. Keravnos (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you think things are so just because you say they are so. Your edit summary asserts: "We are currently working on an agreed upon version". This seems not to be true: it's been a full month since you edited the article, and nearly a full month since you edited anything on Wikipedia. So who is this "we" you speak of? A month is far too long to have an inadequate lede. And please be careful with your accusations about vandalism: I haven't touched the article for a month either, waiting on this promised but never delivered "improved" version. Deliver it and we'll talk; till then we need a decent intro to the current article. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants to delay unnecessarily. Should I ask for a volunteer via RfC? I also thought of Ludwigs2. LoreMariano (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keravnos, whoever you are, the term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia, and my putting a proper intro into the article is certainly not it. Please familiarize yourself with this term as it's used on WP. MichaelBluejay (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so I don't get accused by editing without discussing for those unfamiliar with the history of this article, here is my attempt to discuss adding the intro back to the article. The Aesthetic Realists don't want the Intro section to point out the more unflattering things about AR (such as their "gay cure", the allegations by former members and the press that they're a mind-control cult, and that the founder killed himself). Indeed, they've been trying to censor any mention of those things for years. Recently they've taken a new tactic, claiming that they're just innocently waiting for the article to be rewritten before tackling a new lead section, and stubbing the lead down to almost nothing any time anyone tries to insert a proper intro. They will drag that process out as long as possible, and even when it's done, possibly years from now, they're still gonna object to a complete and neutral intro, just as they've objected for years. There is no compelling justification for this article to not have a good lead, right now. I'm certainly willing to discuss the wording of the intro, as always, as long as that discussion happens in good faith. MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to be unavailable until early April, at the earliest. At that time if the article doesn't have a proper intro then I'll request mediation. If that fails I'll request arbitration. The article should have a proper intro. It's sad that admins here are giving cover to the Aesthetic Realist's agenda of censorship. MichaelBluejay (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Opened

I opened a formal Mediation Cabal to assist. Hopefully, the delay will end shortly. LoreMariano (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

unless anyone has any objections, I'm willing to take on the case as mediator. Lore contacted me about this (mostly, I think, because I have edited this article in the past but don't have a particular viewpoint on the material). I'll put my name on the case, but I'm happy to withdraw if someone has an objection, or there is a preferred mediator you've decided on collectively. --Ludwigs2 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects, I am ready to start working with you. The last comment of our former mediator, IP71, was that the two drafts of the Poetry section (2/21 and 2/25) should be combined. IP71 and I were the only two editors involved in this section. We had agreed that he/she would post a combination of the two drafts on 2/28, but this never appeared. I will be glad to post a combination of the two drafts later today on the drafts page if there are no objections.Trouver (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to Trouver because of obvious bias, and to Ludwigs2 because, based on previous talk/edits, I don't believe s/he's sufficiently familiar with the subject or exercises the best judgement/logic. BTW, I'd also appreciate the Aesthetic Realists not lying about me in the Edit Summaries. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

as a mediator, it's not my job to exercise judgement or logic - I'd only be there to clarify, simplify, and otherwise encourage you guys to reach some kind of agreement amongst yourselves. A glorified hall monitor, really, and you guys write the bathroom passes. it's up to you though - if there's no consensus on having me mediate I will step out. let me know. --Ludwigs2 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I encourage editors to use one mediator or another. I'm too busy and not interested enough to baby-sit this article, but some outside supervision is necessary. The current edit war is highly unproductive.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A mediator hand-picked by one side in a dispute isn't going to be acceptable to the other. There's no "mediation" really needed in terms of the lede section, only enforcement of the policy that the lede be a summary of the article's contents. - Outerlimits (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

'asked' is not the same as 'hand-picked'. no one can force you into mediation, but I would like to suggest that this article will continue to suffer severe problems as long as both sides carry this kind of combative attitude. At the end of the day, it's about achieving some consensus that all of you can live with, and trying to use policy as a bludgeon to 'enforce' a particular revision is just going to cause further headaches. This page needs mediation; but it's possible that you guys need build up a greater level of frustration and exhaustion before you realize that you need mediation. I'll leave my name on the mediation page for now (unless specifically asked to remove it), but I'll step back and wait to see how things progress. --Ludwigs2 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest page protection to stop the current edit war.   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll look over the page history and report it to ANI if it seems warranted. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Poetry and Aesthetic Realism

(Revised draft, 3/19/10)

Eli Siegel stated that ideas central to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism were implicitly present in “Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana,” the poem that brought him widespread fame when it was awarded The Nation's esteemed poetry prize in 1925. The philosophic principle that individuality is relation, “that the very self of a thing is its relations, its having-to-do-with other things” is in this poem. It begins with a hot, quiet afternoon in Montana and travels through time and space, showing that things usually thought of as separate and unrelated “have a great deal to do with each other.” These are lines near the end of the poem:

Hot afternoons are real; afternoons are; places, things, thoughts, feelings are; poetry is;

The world is waiting to be known; Earth, what it has in it! The past is in it;

All words, feelings, movements, words, bodies, clothes, girls, trees, stones, things of beauty,

books, desires are in it; and all are to be known;

Afternoons have to do with the whole world;…

The search for that which connects all branches of knowledge led Siegel to discover a key concept of Aesthetic Realism: “The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.” In Aesthetic Realism classes, he criticized the “intricate tepidity” of T. S. Eliot, whom he declared was “not a poet” and the widely accepted Freudian view of art as sublimation. Aesthetic Realism classes were scholarly and demonstrated that poetry was related to the problems of everyday life. The viewpoint of Aesthetic Realism is that “what makes a good poem is like what can make a good life.”

Siegel defined poetry as “the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality as seen by an individual.” In Aesthetic Realism classes he explained that the greatest desire of a person is to put together opposites, as, in a good poem, “emotion changes into logic: there is no rift between the two.” He maintained that music distinguishes true poetry, whatever the language, period or style; the music of a poem shows the poet has honestly perceived opposites as one, and sincerely united personal feelings with the impersonal structure of the world. “Poetry,” he wrote, “arises out of a like of the world so intense and wide that of itself, it is musical.” Therefore, Aesthetic Realism teaches, even a poem that in substance seems to condemn the world, in its technique and music is praising the world, seeing it truly.

In thousands of Aesthetic Realism lectures, Siegel demonstrated the centrality of poetry to every aspect of life, including "Poetry and Anger," "Poetry and Love," "Educational Method Is Poetic,” "Poetry and Time," "Poetry, Money, and Good Will," “A Poetic Technique of Parenthood,” “Poetry and History,” and “Hamlet Revisited; or, the Family Should Be Poetry.” His students affirm that an important aspect of the philosophy continues to be the study of how a good poem has within it “the composition, beauty, sanity we want in ourselves." This education, they assert, “makes it possible for poetry to be, as Matthew Arnold said, a criticism of life.”

Trouver (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

mediation case?

THer is an outstanding medaitaion on this article at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-03-11/Aesthetic_Realism that has been completely ignored. unless anyone has a particular objection, I'm going to mark that case as closed. if there's any interest in the process later, the case can be reopened. --Ludwigs2 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

no response; closing case now. --Ludwigs2 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Going Forward

Here is the archived page which contains the history of the rewrite process with IP 71 [6] as mediator. I respectfully request a lockdown of the stubbed article until there is agreement to move forward with a new mediator. LoreMariano (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no valid reason to remove the lede. Regardless of whether any other changes to the article ever eventually take place, the article's lede needs to reflect the current contents. There's been a month's delay so far, with little result: since a month seems not to be enough time for you to get the job done, we're left with the article we have. - Outerlimits (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The current article is improperly sourced and is in process of being revised with proper sources. Will Beback instructed editors to complete the new articled based on reliable sources, after which a new lead can be written that properly reflects the revised entry. This was agreed to by all editors earlier this year (see above Archived Talk page).Trouver (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouver, you know damn well that both I and Outerlimits objected to the idea of the article not having an intro, as we do now. We then had no *choice* to go along because the article got locked down (as LoreMariano is trying to ram down our throats again). A month or so of your process later, and we're not significantly closer to being able to write an intro. And anyway, when that magical day comes, maybe two years from now, when the rewrite is finished, am I supposed to believe at that point that you'll suddenly agree to a fair, encyclopedic intro? Of course not. The Aesthetic Realists have been trying to censor any mention of their gay cure, the cult allegations, and the founder's suicide from the article from day one. The only difference is that now an admin has given you all excellent cover for doing so, under the guise of "waiting for the article to be rewritten." At whatever far future date the rewrite is ever completed, you'll continue your agenda to censor the unflattering bits about AR. Your objective is pretty transparent, it's the same as it has been here for years. Whatever. I maintain that, rewrite or not, the article needs a good intro. MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let's maintain civility and not be insulting. The article does need an intro. Does anyone think there should be an article without an intro? I for one do not want two years to pass before we have a finished article. I don't see how anyone gains from that. However, the article should be honest and NPOV. Does anyone disagree with that? The fact is that for several weeks (maybe a month; I don't remember) work was done following IP71's suggestion and with WillBeback's advice (or maybe the other way around) that the article needed better sourcing and should be revised paragraph by paragraph. This takes a lot of time and work, I'm sure. You can see all the sources that have been gathered. It's pretty impressive. That must have taken a great deal of thought and I'm thankful that it was done. Work that was done in good faith should not be discounted. Several sections have already been rewritten, I think. Let's see through the process. We are much closer at this point to coming up with an introduction that is honest. I'd rather have the article be accurate than go too fast and have a personal view that doesn't go along with the sources. Nathan43 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to move editing along, I'm posting the completed Poetry section below, and if we all agree on that, I'll post the following sections. There is no need to use the drafts page since these are completed. Hopefully we can agree and move on. We can always move back to the drafts page if necessary for any particular section. Trouver (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, the citations are in the text, even direct quotes for everyone's convenience in checking citations, but I can't get them show up. Can somebody help me? I have to travel for the rest of the day. Thanks in advance. Trouver (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. LoreMariano (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (3/16 Draft)

I find this to be well sourced and interestingly written. Just one obvious suggestion. The titles of Eli Siegel's two poetry volumes should either both be in italics or neither one should be in italics. User:Cyberpathfinder [[User talk:Cyberpathfinder (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of this seems to concern Eli Siegel rather than Aesthetic Realism. Would it be possible to move the parts that aren't directly related to AR to the Siegel page?   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: A good rule of thumb is that sources for this article should all mention the topic of the article, unless there's a special reason to include some which don't.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Just to clarify, do you object to poetry being quoted? My original draft (2/21 Drafts page) had no poetry, but IP 71 commented: "I'd like to add a stanza from the poem. If it was so important and it's style/aesthetic so suggestive of the philosophy, let's quote a part of it." Frankly, I think his criticism improved this section. However, I shall reconsider it now with your point in mind, and specifically what you say about the sources. I do appreciate your guidance. Trouver (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two stanzas from two poems. The first poem, Hot Afternoon..., is significant to AR, as I understand it, but I'm not aware of any special connection to the second poem. Why are we quoting it here?   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the entire middle paragraph is devoted to Siegel's other poetry with no reference to AR. Much of it could be added to Eli Siegel instead of here.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the draft posted on March 16 to the Drafts Page, and posted below the revision. Thanks to all. Trouver (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (3/19 Draft)

That's more focused on AR. Is there a transcript or recording of the radio interview? How is it verifiable?   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually I should have cited the published version of this interview. Will add it now. BTW, IP 71 asked who were Eli Siegel's philosophic mentors, and this interviewer asked exactly that question. After mentioning a dozen or so philosophers, Siegel said "the person who has most influenced Aesthetic Realism is George Saintsbury, the supposedly academic critic." He mentioned that Saintsbury's A History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe, "exemplifies the diversity of the human attitude." Well, maybe that's for later. Trouver (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Made a small spelling correction in the footnoting from "Aethetic" to "Aesthetic" in the Peter Gordin interview. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 8:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to posting the "Poetry" section.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from drafts page to article page. Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I see the "Philosophy" and "Poetry and Aesthetic Realism" sections next to each other, I wonder if they aren't somewhat redundant. The philosophy section discusses poetry a little bit, and the poetry section discusses philosophy. Would it be possible to either merge them or reduce the overlap?   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same question about redundancy. I think maybe we should keep going and finish the first part of History and then look at the 3 sections together, as a whole, and merge/reduce overlap. LoreMariano (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that things are moving along, that's reasonable.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Will post revised History section by Saturday, 3/27. Agree about redundancy.Trouver (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment is to notify all editors concerned with this article that a revision of the entire article has been posted on the "History-draft 2" page (see above), and it is currently under discussion.Trouver (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will post the sections on History through racism on the main/article page later this afternoon. This re-write is currently on the History/Draft 2 page (see above).Trouver (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you would have thought there were no objections. This has been discussed on the draft page and I raised several objections which were not answered. The discussion stopped but that doesn't mean that there's consensus.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Aesthetic Realism a cult?

It's manifestly not NPOV for this article to report and link to AR's responses to the "cult" allegation, while giving no substantive information about or links to what the critics actually say. (The version I'm looking at, that completely omits one side of this debate, is this one.) JamesMLane t c 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It was previously covered only in the intro, but then the intro cut cut down pending a re-write. For the time being, I've copied the sentence that used to be in the intro to the response section, and removed an unnecessary section that simply said that the ARF had responded to the allegation. Ideally, this will be improved as part of the overall re-write.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this was added by Michael Bluejay on February 7th. Three of the seven links lead to the same article in the Rick Ross site, plus an additional link is just an index page on the same site. Will, did you look at these or did you just copy and paste it? I agree the section needs to be expanded, but not in this sloppy way. Can we at least cut the duplicate links and the index? Also for the record, the Baltimore Jewish Times no longer archives the article in their website. LoreMariano (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That exact version was added in February, but similar text was in there previously and was fairly stable. For example: "Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult."[7] Then someone decided to "improve" the lead and now we're here. There's an authorized copy of the Baltimore Jewish Times on the BlueJay site.[8] I've trimmed the Rick Ross, etc, links. Perhaps this section can be improved as part of the re-write.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Secular evangelical movement

• Packard, William (1988). Evangelism in America. Paragon House. pp. 117–118.

This book calls AR a "secular Evangelical movement" and a "gnostic sect" and describes the philosophy as a "curious mix of psychology and literature". It says that "Its most publicized conversionary experience as the change of certain practicing homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle..." So far as I know, there are few books that discuss AR, so this may be a useful source even though it's a short reference.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored lede

Given the snail's pace at which "editing" is proceeding here, I've restored the purged sections of the lede. At Wikipedia, an article's lede is expected to be an adequate summary of the article's content, and this article's lede hasn't been that for several months. If any rewrites are eventually approved by achieving consensus, and the article content changes, the lede can be adjusted, but there is no justifiable reason to remove entire sections of the lede. The fact that certain editors don't like the article's current content is not a sufficient reason for removing a summary of that content. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, as I've said previously, many times. The omission of the intro serves no purpose other than to mollify the Aesthetic Realists who don't want any criticism of Aesthetic Realism in the article. That's obvious, since they've repeatedly tried to censor any inclusion of such criticism, which is what they're doing now. As for LoreMariano's claims that the intro hasn't been discussed, she's of course ignoring the lengthy discussions here and here. I'll repeat below the intro I proposed earlier. Also, earlier LoreMariano insisted that the article shouldn't have a lead until the rewrite is complete, even *if* we discuss it, so I believe her current insistence on discussion is a red herring (i.e., even though we're discussing again, she'll still oppose a proper intro). We'll see. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Lead:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy created by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. In 1973 Siegel's students founded the Aesthetic Realism Foundation to teach the philosophy. Aesthetic Realists believe that most of the world's problems could be solved by the study of Aesthetic Realism, which is based on these principles:

1. The deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
2. The greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it. Contempt can be defined as the lessening of what is different from oneself as a means of self-increase as one sees it.
3. All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.

The Foundation is based in SoHo in New York City and teaches Aesthetic Realism through lectures, classes, and "consultations", in which three advanced students called "consultants" meet with another student.

Aesthetic Realism is controversial for its claim that it can change gay people to straight, and for allegations that it operates as a mind-control cult.

Gentlemen, once again you have shown yourselves to be against any honest work on this subject. Months of work has been done on this article with WillBebeck's guidance. You presume a good deal to just come in here and edit as you see fit, and I find it highly objectionable. Rethink what you are doing here. It is no one's interest to take this road. Keravnos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

(1) "I find it highly objectionable" -- You can find it as objectionable as you like, but given that nearly your only activity on WP is to try to keep this article censored, it's kind of hard to view you as a defender of proper editing on WP.

(2) "You presume a good deal to just come in here and edit as you see fit." -- So it's presumptuous to use WP the way it's intended to be used? Wow, that's a new one.

(3) "It is no one's interest to take this road." -- Sure it is. It's in the interest of everyone who wants WP to be a good encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia has good articles, and good articles have good intro/summaries. By contrast, the only interests served by neutering the article are those of the Aesthetic Realists who fiercely fight to suppress any criticism of their group.

(4) How, pray tell, does adding a lead to the article UNDO the "months of work" that has been done so far? I know you're not especially familiar with WP (besides trying to learn enough lingo in order to co-opt it), but surely you understand that WP and its articles are dynamic, right? An article is never "done", ever. If the lead needs to be changed in the future, it can be. You're complaining as though it can't, even though you must know otherwise.

(5) Are you willing to put a time limit on the rewrite, including the months that have already been spent? That is, are you willing to allow the article to have a lead if the rewrite is not done after X months of editing? Not that I think you have any authority to deny a lead, but I'm just wondering whether you're reasonable enough to this, and if so what kind of timeframe you think would be fair? Or, as I suspect, do you prefer that the article should not have a lead "for however long the rewrite takes, whatever that may be"?

(6) Remember one of your favorite phrases here, "Please do not edit without consensus" ? I'd be happy if you abided by that yourself. An admin just said, while restoring the lead, "Achieve consensus on Talk page", but then you just lunged to censor the lead again, without any attempt to achieve consensus. And as I've said before, there is certainly no consensus to keep the lead out of the article. Multiple editors object to your censorship. This article is going to have a lead, one way or another, sooner or later, and you can be part of the process or not. Your choice.

(7) All of this is really moot, since we all know that the idea of rewriting the article is just the *excuse* you're using for not allowing a proper lead, and that once the rewrite is finished, you're certainly still going to object all over again. That was made quite apparent by LoreMariano's reference to the new lead as "filthy POV" (!). You're not really objecting to the lead because there's a rewrite in process, you're objecting to the lead because you don't like it. There it is, plain as day. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It was agreed previously to rework the article, section by section, and then write the lead from the article--not the other way around. There is no harm in a one sentence lead. Please focus on improving the rest of the article first. Jonathunder (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. For the record, the word "filthy" referred to cult allegations. LoreMariano (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think when the plan was adopted to revise the article first it was expected to move along more expeditiously. No new drafts have been proposed recently. Back in January and February, some drafts for the lede were proposed. Except for the last sentence, the version proposed early on by LoreMariano would seem better than nothing.Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 11#Proposed lead. There are also other suggested versions that look good. Maybe we should just add one of those, or even the most recent lede, and then go back to improving the rest of the article. When that's done we can circle back and make the lede more representative of the improved article. Six months is too long to go with the most important part of the article absent.   Will Beback  talk  17:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed by whom, exactly? Where is this agreement documented? Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, I'm not sure there was ever a formal agreement. But it was discussed on Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 10 and Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 11, which cover discussions in January and February.
  • Also, I'm told that a new draft of the history section may appear this weekend, but if it's like past drafts it won't be ready for posting immediately, so it may be June before that section is complete, and there's still no new action on the other sections. So the rewrite that we're waiting on might not be completed until July, if not later. If we can quickly agree on one of the already discussed draft from January/February then it'd take the pressure off the re-writing of the rest of the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, you said, "Come to think of it, I'm not sure there was ever a formal agreement." Are you *** kidding me that you're NOT SURE there was no formal agreement?! Even after the MULTIPLE, STRONG objections by myself and Outerlimits? Here are some of my earlier objections to this article not having a proper lead, dating back to 5 February:

• "On the intro, if we truly can't edit until consensus is achieved, then while we're waiting for that, the default should at least be the one that's been here for years -- not the censored version that does a disservice to the reader because the important bits are left out, and that the AR people are delighted with (because the important bits are left out). In truth, that intro is pretty crappy which is why I tried to make it better, but if the AR people insist on immediately reverting my attempt at an improvement, then fine, I'll put the old, crappy intro back up as the default while we're seeking consensus." Archive #10, Disambiguation
• "It's simply not acceptable for the intro to not mention what AR is notable for in the meantime." Archive #11, Proposed lead
• "Now they're joining in with the censorship and even locking the censored version into place -- both over the objection of at least two other long-time editors. It's pretty sad." Archive #11, Rewriting the intro, 8 Feb
• "There is zero reason the old intro should not remain while we're (supposedly) hashing out a new one. And there is certainly not consensus that the censored version should be locked into place. At least I and Outerlimits object to that. If the article is to be rewritten from scratch, fine, but in the meantime, the article should contain a reasonable Intro, since it's the most important part of the article." Archive #11, Rewriting the intro, 9 Feb
• "71 appears to be MIA. (S)he was the only independent editor working on the section-by-section rewrite, so without him/her, I intend to put a proper encyclopedic intro into this article. Yes, I know the AR people will object that there's not "consensus" to do so (since the AR people will obviously never consent to the more unflattering aspects of AR being presented), but they should remember that there is certainly no consensus to keep a proper intro *out* of the article. At least Outerlimits and I agree that the article should have a proper intro now. If 71 returns, I'll agree to go back to his tedious method of rewriting the whole article from scratch before we tackle the intro. But so long as s/he's absent, the article should have a proper intro." Archive #11, Editing the article again, 11 March
• "There is no compelling justification for this article to not have a good lead, right now. I'm certainly willing to discuss the wording of the intro, as always, as long as that discussion happens in good faith." [Archive #11, Editing the article again, 15 March
• "Trouver, you know damn well that both I and Outerlimits objected to the idea of the article not having an intro, as we do now. We then had no *choice* to go along because the article got locked down (as LoreMariano is trying to ram down our throats again)....Whatever. I maintain that, rewrite or not, the article needs a good intro." Archive #11, Going Forward, 14 March

And Will, when you say, "I think when the plan was adopted to revise the article first it was expected to move along more expeditiously," you can speak for yourself. *I* knew it would be the exact opposite, and I said so repeatedly:

• "The reason for cutting the intro was ostensibly so a consensus could be worked out, but are they working on that? No. Not for a good week. During this time they've made certain to repeatedly censor the article "until consensus is reached", while making no effort to actually reach consensus. If they do return to the discussion they will drag it out as long as possible so that the censored intro remains as long as possible." Archive #11, Proposed Lead
• "And it's no coincidence that they don't want the intro addressed until everything else is addressed, because the longer they can drag out the process, the longer the censored version will remain." Archive #11, Rewriting the intro, 8 Feb
• "As I've said repeatedly, they love the fact that the intro is censored, and they'll drag this process out as long as possible to keep it that way. I'm disappointed that you and Will are giving them the cover they need for that." Archive #11, Rewriting the intro, 9 Feb
• "They will drag that process out as long as possible, and even when it's done, possibly years from now, they're still gonna object to a complete and neutral intro, just as they've objected for years." Archive #11, Editing the article again, 11 March Archive #11, Editing the article again, 15 March]
• "A month or so of your process later, and we're not significantly closer to being able to write an intro. And anyway, when that magical day comes, maybe two years from now, when the rewrite is finished, am I supposed to believe at that point that you'll suddenly agree to a fair, encyclopedic intro? Of course not. The Aesthetic Realists have been trying to censor any mention of their gay cure, the cult allegations, and the founder's suicide from the article from day one. The only difference is that now an admin has given you all excellent cover for doing so, under the guise of "waiting for the article to be rewritten." Archive #11, Going Forward, 14 March

I wish you'd listened to me. 3+ months without a proper lead now. The article still suffers, and the only winners are the AR people who wanted to censor the cult allegations from the lead. Sad state of affairs for WP. MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, none of us are perfect. ;) So, is there any chance of actually reaching a consensus on a lede in a timely manner? While it may take 3 months, if we do it right it might last for thirty years.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? To answer your question, no, absolutely not. That's because the Aesthetic Realists have made it plain as day that they intend to fight a proper intro (i.e., one that identifies the unflattering things that AR is most famous for). We could spend five years and it wouldn't make any difference, they're still gonna object. Just recently one of them called the inclusion of the cult allegations "filthy POV", and another one, lunging to censor the intro yet again, lied in the edit summary by saying that there was an agreement to not edit the intro (right after I included my laundry list of examples above about how there was *never* such an agreement). If you give them three months to write an intro, they'll just pretend that they're seeking consensus when in fact they'll just enjoy the next 3-month extension of the censorship that was handed to them on a silver platter (and then at the end, they'll still object to having a proper intro). You're acting as though the Aesthetic Realists are reasonable and are editing in good faith. Neither is true. A WP tenet is _assume_ good faith, but after editors demonstrate blatantly, consistently, and over a long period of time that they're *not* editing in good faith, there's no reason to keep pretending that they are. AR is best-known for its supposed gay cure and for being considered a cult, period, no gray area, no evidence to the contrary, full stop. There are a plethora of references to support this. That's why these things go in the intro, even if the Aesthetic Realists don't like it. They've gotten their way around here -- to the detriment of a good article -- for far too long. I see zero reason to keep trying to humor and mollify them. The unreasonable wishes of a biased group shouldn't trump having a proper article about the subject in question. Why are we letting unreasonable people hold up the editing of the article? Who does that serve (besides those unreasonable people)? MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of the article this talk page is for, not the motives of editors. Jonathunder (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Siunce there is no end in sight for the revisions of the article, let's see if any of the previous proposed lede drafts can be used as a stopgap. Are there any specific objections to the draft at Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 11#Rewriting the intro?   Will Beback  talk  15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bluejay, that you can say that Aesthetic Realism is mostly known for it's gay cure and that it is considered a cult, despite the enormous amount of historical data to the contrary, much of which has been cited in the article, shows a blatant POV. There now exists on the sources page reference after reference showing the wide scholarship of Eli Siegel and of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, recognized all the way up to the halls of Congress. Yes, there is controversy--these days with the internet in the crisis it is in, where isn't there?--but to blatantly write this when the Wikiepdia record clearly shows a good faith approach, shows your malignant purpose. With a backlog of 36,000 articles to be sorted out, Wikipedia has, like the internet itself, a crisis of truth. You say Wikiepdia is dynamic; that it is evolving. What is it evolving towards? What is the basis, if people are allowed to not consider the facts. Let the quantitative and qualitative evidence have a chance to speak. Check it out. It'll do you good. Keravnos (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the phrase “proper intro” is a euphemism for the intro Michael Bluejay is promoting, not an intro that is true to the subject matter in the article. The Wikipedia article on Aesthetic Realism can’t be used to promote a self-published site. The reputations of real people are at stake here.

Regarding the change from homosexuality, if someone wants to say Aesthetic Realism gained national attention in the mid 1970s and 80s for the fact that men changed from homosexuality through studying it, fine. I object to the word “claim” because it is not a claim, there are real, breathing men who have changed and the change can easily be verified.

There is no war here between men who have changed and men who choose to live a gay lifestyle. Every person has the right to live his life the way he wants to. In the spirit of cultural inclusion, I ask that you also give the men who changed a right to live their lives in the way they choose to. They deserve your respect, whether you agree with their choice or not.

I am going to look at the intro Will Beback points to now. LoreMariano (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, thanks. I think much better intros have been offered, even by LoreMariano, back when she was being more reasonable. I'll post some below as a starting point. Let's assume that we'll add the appropriate sources/references/Wikilinks to whatever intro we choose or construct, if they're lacking in the prose below. Also, will someone please explain to Keravnos what an encyclopedia is? MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what about using one of LoreMariano's drafts? Is any of those acceptable as a stopgap? (Obviously with some other word than "smear").   Will Beback  talk  16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the word "smear". ("Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy...") That is pretty much what they say about their critics, possibly even using that very word, so that seems like accurate reporting. I would like to fuse the last paragraph from my version with her Option 2 version, since the bit I'm replacing in her version is pretty sloppy. (Which is actually my fault, since I wrote it long ago and then she copied it.) I'd also add some slight cleanup in the next sentence. So here's what I suggest for the final paragraph for Option 2:

• Aesthetic Realism is controversial for its claim that it can change gay people to straight[6], and for allegations that it operates as a mind-control cult.[7] Aesthetic Realists counter that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.[8]

Also, what exactly do you mean by "stopgap"? That this is the set-in-stone lead we'll have while the article continues to be slowly rewritten? If we use LM's Option 2 + my final paragraph above then I agree, with the stipulation that I have the right to reconsider that agreement if the article is still "in process" two months from now. Thank you for your help with this. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Smear" is not a good word for an encyclopedia, unless we're actually quoting someone. "Denigrate" is a $5 version of the same thing. Likewise we shouldn't use the word "claim". "Assert" is an acceptable replacement. So that gives us:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.[4] Its primary teachings are:

• Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
• Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
• The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior—causes unhappiness and even insanity.

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Aesthetic Realism is controversial for its assertion that it can change gay people to straight[6], and for allegations that it operates as a mind-control cult.[7] Aesthetic Realists counter that their critics are attempting to denigrate a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.[8]

Is that acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They do use the word "smear" three times on Countering the Lies. (e.g., "The putting forth of such a smear is an example of how much this liar feels he has the right to make up anything." source I am supposedly that "liar".) In any event I agree to your version, with the caveats already stated (right to reconsider after 2 months, and that we add the appropriate references and Wikilinks). MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A great deal of careful research and work has been done on this article, and the work is ongoing. I think it would be unwise to put up a temporary lead under pressure, so I am against it. Nathan43 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nathan43, nobody is suggesting that we undo any of the work that's been done on the article. We're only talking about adding a proper intro. (And to everyone else, how many times did I predict the Aesthetic Realists would fight to keep the intro out of the article?) MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

MichaelBluejay's version

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy created by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. In 1973 Siegel's students founded the Aesthetic Realism Foundation to teach the philosophy. Aesthetic Realists believe that most of the world's problems could be solved by the study of Aesthetic Realism, which is based on these principles:

• The deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
• The greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it. Contempt can be defined as the lessening of what is different from oneself as a means of self-increase as one sees it.
• All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves. [5]

The Foundation is based in SoHo in New York City and teaches Aesthetic Realism through lectures, classes, and "consultations", in which three advanced students called "consultants" meet with another student.

Aesthetic Realism is controversial for its claim that it can change gay people to straight[6], and for allegations that it operates as a mind-control cult.[7]

71's version, 7 February

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy created by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. Aesthetic Realists believe that root of humankind's problems--personal unhappiness, family conflicts, social strife, poverty, racism, and war--can be understood and resolved by the study of Aesthetic Realism, which is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it--contempt defined as lessening what is different from oneself as a means to make the self seem more important. And third, all beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what people are truly seeking. [8]

These teachings are promoted by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, a non-profit organization based in SoHo, New York City through a variety of lectures, classes, art events, and "consultations", in which individual students meet with three teachers called "consultants".

Throughout the history of the organization, Aesthetic Realists have criticized the lack of recognition of their philosophy in mainstream press.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Although Aesthetic Realism was well received within artistic, aesthetic, anthropological, and pedagogical circles, it never received widespread attention or endorsement by the media, psychologists, or academic philosophers. Aesthetic Realism has been controversial for the claim that it could change gay people's sexual orientation by teaching them to perceive and like the world "as it is". [15] The organization has also been accused by some ex-students and researchers for operating as a cult.[16][17][18][19][20] [21][22] Aesthetic Realists have responded that the homosexuality issue is a part of their past not central to the philosophy, and that the accusations of being a cult are based on lies.

LoreMariano's Option 1, 30 July 2009

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. In The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247 (December 21, 1977), he presented Aesthetic Realism as a three-part study this way:

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt. [1]

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. [2] Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.

LoreMariano's Option 2

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.[4] Its primary teachings are:

• Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
• Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
• The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior—causes unhappiness and even insanity.

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. [5] Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.

Excerpt of B.K.S.J.'s version

(Just to show how unreasonable and unencyclopedic the AR people are.)

The truth of the principles of Aesthetic Realism has held up through multitudinous testing for 60 years. Their scientific value and personal value to the lives of individuals has been affirmed in hundreds of first hand accounts in seminars and essays. [20] The single criticism has been social: a number of individuals, particularly since 1990, have alleged that students of Aesthetic Realism are not educators and students but they are really followers of a cult. These individuals have initiated two newspaper articles to that effect [21] But the scientific and aesthetic ideas of Aesthetic Realism are too firmly established for any claims of fraudulence or self-deception to hold up. Indeed, say proponents of Aesthetic Realism, these so-called “critics” are lying for purposes of their own, and the articles they initiated are nothing but deliberate disinformation. About 70 artists, musicians, social scientists, business people, medical specialists, and so on, have posted detailed refutations of these lies on the website Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies.

LoreMariano's Proposed Lede: May 14, 2010

This is the lede I propose. I hope it's acceptable to everyone.

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: “All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.”

These teachings are promoted by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, a non-profit foundation based in SoHo, New York City, through a variety of lectures, classes in poetry, anthropology, art, and music, art events, and individual consultations.

Over the decades, Aesthetic Realists have criticized the lack of recognition of their philosophy in mainstream press. Although Aesthetic Realism has been well received within artistic, aesthetic, anthropological, and pedagogical circles, it has not received widespread attention by the media, psychologists, or academic philosophers.

Between 1970 and 1990, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was controversial for its assertion that through the study of this philosophy, men changed from homosexuality. Not wishing to be a source of anger on the subject (it always was fully in favor of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation), in 1990 the Foundation stopped giving consultations to change from homosexuality and discontinued its presentation of the change, which was never central to the philosophy itself. Some men who had Aesthetic Realism consultations later said they did not change, and chose to live a gay lifestyle; others said that their change has been complete and lasting.

Some former students have expressed anger at Aesthetic Realism and called it a cult, while other former students have objected to such a characterization, saying it is nothing of the kind, and have praised it for its enduring good effect on their lives. LoreMariano (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it's not acceptable. To touch on just one symptomatic point: the gay paragraph devotes far more words to AR's non-disavowal disavowal of their claims about homosexuality than it does to their 20 year history of proselytizing that AR makes gays straight because homosexuality is the result of contempt. The "retreat from publicity" consists of a paragraph on a website, the publicity itself spanned 20 years and involved prominent advertisements in national newspapers, several self-published books, and appearances on radio and television programs. To emphasize the single declaration of "whoops, we're taking too much heat to be open about our beliefs regarding homosexuality" instead of the 20 year history of openly espousing those beliefs would be deliberately misleading. The paragraph is full of AR apologetics and special pleading, while giving minimal voice to the opposing, mainstream viewpoint, which is that no major mental health professional organization has endorsed efforts to change sexual orientation and many have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about those who purport to be able to change someone's sexual orientation. We do not emphasize fringe viewpoints over mainstream viewpoints in Wikipedia, even in articles about those fringe viewpoints. (And we also don't call viewpoints we don't agree with "filthy", if only because it makes apparent that we are so emotionally involved with a subject that we are not likely to produce a reasonable NPOV treatment of it.) - Outerlimits (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, first it's much too long for a lead, and second, it reads like a public relations product. Let's go back to reworking the article, then write a lead that succinctly summarizes it. Jonathunder (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, let's restore an old lede, so that the summary is in the article as our standards require, since the "reworking" is unlikely to produce anything usable in the near future, and there is no reason for this delaying tactic to continue. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the work now being done on the main body of the article that none of the ledes MBJ and Outerlimits suggest accurately represent the subject and since they do not agree to the temporary lede suggested by Lore Mariano I also think we should try to perfect the article itself and then try to write a lede that adequately summarizes the actual agreed upon content in the article. - Cyberpathfinder (talk) 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The re-write of this article will be completed next week, and I request that all interested editors refrain from attempting a lede until it is posted. The lede should arise from the article. Thank you.Trouver (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay! We have a new proposed lead from the AR side! Sure, it's far from encyclopaedic, but I'm willing to try to work with it in good faith. So here we go... The first three paragraphs are okay with me, so I'll start with the first sentence of the fourth paragraph: Between 1970 and 1990, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was controversial for its assertion that through the study of this philosophy, men changed from homosexuality. First of all, Aesthetic Realism is *still* controversial for its past promotion of its gay-change program. That's (for example) why the New York Blade titled their article "Anti-Gay Cult Pulls a Fast One" just a couple of years ago. On the other end of the timeline, we don't know exactly when AR became *controversial* for its program, only when the program started. I'm pretty sure AR's book _The H Persuasion_ says something like, "Since 1965, there has been more or less a continuous effort to have the change from homosexuality documented in the press." (I don't have my copy handy at the moment.) Also, Aesthetic Realists *still* believe that homosexuality is amenable to change through the study of AR, even if AR no longer offers a program of change, which helps extend the controversy to the present. Finally, it's not just men who supposedly changed, it was also women. So my suggested replacement for the first sentence is:

• The Aesthetic Realism Foundation is controversial for asserting that homosexuals can become heterosexual by studying the philosophy. It offered counseling towards that end from 1970 to 1990. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we get an official consensus from all interested parties on the first three paragraphs before digging into the fourth? I don't want to begin a labor intensive effort only to have someone say later that they never approved the first three paragraphs. LoreMariano (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Slight change of topic: Previously there was a lot of discussion about how to word and source the definition of Aesthetic Realism. One of the journal articles listed on the sources page has a definition, and claims SIegel as the source, but I'm not sure that particular definition has been discussed here. I'm mentioning this journal article because some Wikipedians really like them as sources, since they're ostensibly more credible, so I should point out that the article isn't truly independent/third party since it's written by an Aesthetic Realism teacher. Personally I don't think that's a problem, but I'm just offering full disclosure, in case anyone thinks this is kind of a sourcing sleight-of-hand. Anyway, here's the definition from the journal article:

In 1977 [Siegel] gave a compact, tripartite description of his philosophy:

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is contempt.British Journal of Aesthetics

Siegel variously explained Aesthetic Realism in similar (but not exact) different ways over the years. Clearly he felt the concepts were more important than the actual wording and that there was more than one way to describe them. Though some of these off-the-cuff definitions are probably better than others, and I'm not sure this particular one is best, especially as its explanation of contempt isn't necessarily clear, and doesn't show the importance to which Aesthetic Realism places on it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't introduce major changes of topic mid-discussion. That's an entirely separate issue. If you want to get a new intro approved please stick to that topic. We had a separate discussion on the entire section devoted to the philosophy, and if we want to discuss that content we should start a fresh thread for it. If you want to discuss improvements to this draft please propose succinct replacement language.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest something that we can all live with as a stopgap, succinct and (hopefully) not controversial:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: “All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.” [1]

The philosophy is principally taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, a non-profit educational foundation based in SoHo, New York City, through a variety of lectures, classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and individual consultations.

The Aesthetic Realism Foundation has faced controversy for its assertion that through study of this philosophy men changed from homosexuality. Due to the anger on this subject, in 1990 the Foundation formally discontinued presenting this change. Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult,[2] but other former (and current) students say it is nothing of the kind[3]."

LoreMariano (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This reads much better; it could work. Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else I'll post it tomorrow.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be posted, though not as a permanent solution, since it has its difficulties - among which are that "anger" (which is AR's attempt to characterize the response as emotional rather than rational or fact-based) should more neutrally be "Due to the negative response to their position on this subject", and the characterization of what the foundation formally discontinued presenting as "this change" (as though such changes were fact), when what they stopped presenting was their claims that there was any such "change". I would suggest the second sentence change from "Due to the anger on this subject, in 1990 the Foundation formally discontinued presenting this change" to "Due to the negative response to their position on this subject, the Foundation formally decided to stop discussing their beliefs regarding homosexuality in 1990."- Outerlimits (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You may object to some wording in the sentence--but I am a man who changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. The change is real, it is a fact. CSaguaro (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First, our personal experiences are beside the point here. We should rely on secondary sources. As for the proposed edit, it seems pretty minor. It looks like CSaguaro is objecting to some of Outerlimits' comments but not the edit itself. Unless there's something else I'll post the draft with the altered sentence.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to referring to the change as a discussion of "beliefs" and therefore I do not agree to this change. I can live with the part of the sentence which starts "Due to the negative response to their positions on this subject..." if you add: "Due to the negative response by gay advocacy groups on this subject...." LoreMariano (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Would "views" or "theories" be more acceptable than "beliefs"?   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Lore Mariano's proposed lede with this final sentence: "Due to the negative response by gay advocacy groups, the Foudation formally discontinued public presentations and consultations on this subject in 1990." Trouver (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, but do we really need to say that the response was from "gay advocacy groups"? That seems like too much details for the intro.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the teaching was discontinued was because of the anger of the gay lobby. This fact must be present; otherwise it looks like the teaching was discontinued for some other reason. Trouver (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removing the "negative response" part. I'm not doubting that gay advocacy groups were involved, but I'm just saying it's more detail than we need in the intro. That should definitely go in the body, though.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is misleading to the reader to say there was "negative response" without indicating who it came from. The most concise way of putting it is the original sentence: "Due to the anger on this subject, in 1990 the Foundation formally discontinued presenting this change." Everyone realizes that this is a subject people have a lot of emotion about. Trouver (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to the (wordy) interim version: "Due to the negative response by gay advocacy groups, the Foudation formally discontinued public presentations and consultations on this subject in 1990." If there are no further objections let's post it already. `  Will Beback  talk 

If the foundation's spokemen have a reliable source that states that the negative reaction was only by "gay advocacy groups", I won't object. But to assert the foundation's position that it was only "gay advocacy groups" that objected as if that position were factual without such a source is not appropriate. Wikipedia shouldn't participate in the foundation's attempts to marginalize those who object to AR's assertions, especially as they represent the mainstream position. The sentence should read "Due to the negative response engendered by their position, the Foundation formally discontinued public presentations and consultations on this subject in 1990." - Outerlimits (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That sentence does not sound neutral to me. I agree with Trouver. The concise sentence is the one most likely to work. Nathan43 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First, I apologize for introducing a different topic in this thread earlier. My bad, won't happen again. Second, I would have responded earlier to this thread, but I only just now noticed the discussion had been continuing. I'm kind of alarmed at the one-day deadline for objections proposed. So now to the discussion: I object to our saying that AR stopped its gay-change program because of anger (or whatever) about it, because that's only part of the story. They also stopped it because when so many of their success stories fell off the wagon and decided they were really gay after all, the foundation had a hard time continuing to promote their program with a straight face...especially when they had taken the opportunity to proclaim the change as "permanent" at every opportunity. If the media came calling and asked, "So these specific people [e.g. from the books and TV interviews] who said they changed permanently, they still consider themselves changed, and credit Siegel with that change? Can we talk to them?", the answer would of course be uncomfortable. Now, I can't *prove* that this is one of the reasons that AR stopped its program, but the point is, neither can ARF prove that it stopped only because of "anger from the gay rights lobby". As a result, *neither* should be presented as fact. Instead, they have to be presented as claims. For example, "In 1990 the foundation stopped offering its program of change, saying that the issue was divisive and it didn't want to be involved in the controversy. Critics allege that another reason the foundation stopped its program was that it was embarrassed that many of those who said they changed later reverted to a gay lifestyle."

Next, I object to our saying that "some former members" claim that AR is a cult. New York Magazine, Commentary Magazine, Harper's, the New York Times, and noted cult expert Steve Hassan are not former members of AR. I suggest, "The foundation has been called a cult by former members and the media, though the foundation denies that allegation, saying that its critics are 'liars'." MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we compromise? This doesn't have to be perfect.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, the counterthelies.com website appears to be self-published, and so it would not qualify as a source. We don't need to necessarily footnote everything in the intro, but it should still be verifiable. If that site is the only place where its assertions are found then we should leave them out.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of progress and brevity, I suggest attaching the sentence in question to the previous one: "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation has faced controversy for its assertion that through study of this philosophy men changed from homosexuality, and in 1990 formally discontinued presenting this change." Trouver (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WillBeback, I think you're really going overboard about "self-published" sources. AR's Countering the Lies website is absolutely a valid source for the kind of thing we're referencing.

1. There is not a clear consensus on exactly what a self-published source is. I sought clarification on the policy discussion page some time ago and there were differing opinions, and no definitive answer. We know that the NY Times isn't self-published, but about sites like Countering the Lies, or the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's website, it's not so clear. I don't think it's possible to apply policy unless the terms of that policy are clearly defined.
2. The policy states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (emphasis added) This goes to what I told you in a different forum: Using a source to justify a fact is entirely different from using a source to evidence a claim. For example, we can't cite the ARF site for the WP sentence "Men changed from homosexuality by studying Aesthetic Realism." But we can *absolutely* cite them for the WP sentence, "The group claims that men changed from homosexuality by studying Aesthetic Realism." If the claim is on their page, then there it is, boom! There's the evidence. The self-published policy, vague as it use, is quite clear that the reason self-published sources are frowned upon is that they're not reliable about expert testimony. In the case of claims, we're not talking about expert testimony to substantiate a fact. We need only see that the claim is made.
3. The self-published policy does say that self-published sources can be used as sources of information about themselves. So here again, if the WP sentence is about a claim that Aesthetic Realists made about themselves, then their site is absolutely fair game.

So, I think you're really over-applying the policy outside the bounds of what the policy actually says, and certainly outside the intent of the policy. So unless the policy is clarified to the contrary, I'm going to push back pretty hard on the idea that we can't cite a website as evidence of *claims*.

Finally, Trouver's suggestion is almost acceptable. The phrase "presenting this change" is a bit ambiguous and then there's the problem that it talks about the change as though it were fact. Less ambiguous and less POV would be, "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation has faced controversy for its assertion that studying the philosophy could make gays become straight, and in 1990 it stopped offering counseling for gays seeking to become heterosexual." MichaelBluejay (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Above is absolutely unacceptable. This concerns many living individuals (See comment of CSaguaro: "I am a man who changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. The change is real, it is a fact.") The men and women who have changed also have rights. You may disagree with their choice but must respect their right to make it, as they respect yours. "Claim" is not acceptable. I have already offered several suggestions in the spirit of compromise. I propose: "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation has faced controversy for its assertion that through study of this philosophy men changed from homosexuality, and in 1990 formally discontinued presenting this change." Trouver (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that men changed from homosexuality through study of this philosophy, and in 1990 it formally stopped presenting this change." (Same thing, I think, but shorter.) Does this work? Jonathunder (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is another possibility: "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that through study of this philosophy men changed from homosexuality, and in 1990 formally discontinued consultations and presentations on this subject." CSaguaro (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Same thing as above, but longer. The lead should be short. Jonathunder (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Either one of these last two is fine with me. Trouver (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here is what we have:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."[1]

The philosophy is principally taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, a non-profit educational foundation based in SoHo, New York City, through a variety of lectures, classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and individual consultations.

The Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that men changed from homosexuality through study of this philosophy, and in 1990 it formally stopped presenting this change. Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult,[2] but other former (and current) students say it is nothing of the kind.[3]

- Jonathunder (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just too awkward. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and this doesn't read like one. The wording "presenting this change", if it's even comprehensible, suggests that the change is fact, when in reality it's just a claim. And the cult sentence is also awkward. Also, as I said earlier, the cult charge isn't coming from just "some former students", it's coming from a variety of quarters. So we either list some more of them, or none of them. The lead is the most important part of any article, so it behooves us to do it properly. Let me try another stab:

• The Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that homosexuality is amenable to change, and in 1990 it stopped offering counseling for gays seeking to become straight. The organization has also been described as a cult by former students and the press, which the Aesthetic Realists have denied, saying that their critics are "liars".MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of information.

1. Consultations have never been described as "counseling" by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation.

2. That term "Aesthetic Realists" was used early on in the history of Aesthetic Realism, but has not been used in decades.

3. There are only a few former students who call Aesthetic Realism a cult. The press picks that up and quotes them. There have also been many positive things in the press about Aesthetic Realism and it is misleading to get the press in here calling Aesthetic Realism a cult. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's only a stopgap. Let's go back to working on the main article and then come back to fix the intro.   Will Beback  talk  17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has been without a lead for too long already. I don't know why you think that working on the article would make the lead easier to resolve in the future. Do you think that once the article is done, people like Cyberpathfinder *won't* continue to protest, based on their lack of understanding of how an encyclopedia works? There will always be conflict. Putting it on the shelf doesn't solve anything, it just postpones the conflict. Let's work towards a resolution now. Let me repeat the suggestion I made earlier:

• The Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that homosexuality is amenable to change, and in 1990 it stopped offering counseling for gays seeking to become straight. The organization has also been described as a cult by former students and the press, which the Aesthetic Realists have denied, saying that their critics are "liars".

Not that Cyberpathfinder's comments merit a reply, but: (1) It doesn't matter that ARF never described consultations as "counseling". Stormfront never described itself as a racist organization, either. Groups don't get to choose how they're reported on. (2) Ditto for Aesthetic Realists not referring to themselves as Aesthetic Realists in recent times. You're welcome to suggest an alternative. (3) Enough people and media have called Aesthetic Realism a cult that we report that allegation. WP doesn't pass judgement on the claim, it just reports the claim, because the claim has been made, in enough quarters, including in the media. When New York Magazine calls Aesthetic Realism "a cult of messianic nothingness", when Harper's calls Aesthetic Realists "the Moonies of poetry", and when probably the most recognized expert on mind-control cults says that Aesthetic Realism is one, it would be *irresponsible* for an encyclopedia not to report that claim. MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The long-stable text in the intro was, more or less, this:

• They promoted their philosophy as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.

I think the new version is better than what was here before. And yes, we can revisit this after the article is finished. It might not be easier to agree then, but we don't have to make a perfect intro right now and we've already invested a lot of time in the work on the main text so let's finish that before getting distracted.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3

Per request, I've set up Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3 as a page to discuss a new draft of the history section.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm posting the rewrite on Drafts 3.Trouver (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Finalizing Rewrite

I would like to make the following changes if there are no objections:

1. Post the rewrite of "Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and racism" which has been ready since April 17 Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts2.

2. Cut the section titled "Aesthetic Realism scholarship" as the references contained in that section have been moved into "Aesthetic Realism and the arts" as footnoted references.

3. As was suggested by Trouver 4 weeks ago, edit the title of the final section to "Criticism and response". Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3

4. Replace the POV template at the top of the article page with the controversial template.

5. In order to more accurately describe the profession, change "researchers" to "cult researchers" in the last section.

LoreMariano (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will make these changes this weekend. LoreMariano (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to changes mentioned above, but as I view the entire entry with a fresh eye after an absence of several months, I find a grammatical error and I'd recommend some small changes for clarification:

(1) In the first sentence of the final paragraph of the lede, delete the word "formally" (it might sound like the subject was presented informally), and in the final sentence cut the parenthetical phrase "(and current)"

(2) Citation correction: the Philosophy section refers to "Civilization Begins" which appears in The Right of...issue 228, dated August 10, 1977, not issue 229, dated August 17, 1977.

(3) The grammatical error is in the Poetry section, and I propose reversing two sentences and cutting the Eliot reference, so the paragraph reads as follows: "The search for that which connects all branches of knowledge led Siegel to discover a key concept of Aesthetic Realism: "The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites." Aesthetic Realism classes were scholarly and demonstrated that poetry was related to the problems of everyday life. The viewpoint of Aesthetic Realism that “what makes a good poem is like what can make a good life" contradicts the Freudian view of art as sublimation."

(4) In the homosexuality section, "New York City's WNDT Channel 13" should read "WNET".

(5) In the section on the opposition to prejudice and racism, I would like to make these changes on the drafts page before you move it to the main page: (a) add the adjective "mere" before "tolerance" to avoid the impression that tolerance is opposed; (b) the Ossie Davis quotation should specifically refer to Aesthetic Realism, so I suggest continuing the quotation with the bold passage that follows “ending racism in this country. ...[She] is writing an introduction [to my play] based on what she has learned about people and history from Aesthetic Realism which she has studied for decades." (Citation: Bermstein, Alice, ed., The People of Clarendon County--A Play by Ossie Davis with Photographs and Historical Documents, and Essays on the Education That Can End Racism.) Please let me know if this is OK.Trouver (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll add these corrections/edits to the post. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Posting now. The footnotes need to be gone over carefully. There are inconsistencies and formatting issues. I did not make any changes to the footnotes, aside from changing placement on one correction as noted above and deleting 2 old references. LoreMariano (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I will start cleaning up footnotes later this week. Trouver (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent Suggested Edits

This note is directed to Ocaasi: I welcome your suggested contributions as I'm sure others do, but given the history of the entry, we cannot make any changes without consensus.

That said, here are my comments regarding your edits:

Suggested Change 1

1. Original: The Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that men changed from homosexuality through study of this philosophy, and in 1990 it stopped presenting this change. Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, but other former students say it is nothing of the kind.
2. Edited: The Foundation faced controversy for its assertion that men changed from homosexuality through study of this philosophy, and in 1990 it stopped presenting this change. Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, while other former students say it is not.

I have no objection to this change.

Suggested Change 2

1. Original: Poetry and Aesthetic Realism
2. Edited: Importance of Poetry

The original heading is more appropriate in my opinion. The section is not about the importance of poetry per se, it is about poetry and Aesthetic Realism as a subject in itself. Aesthetic Realism arose from a poetic way of seeing. There may be a better heading than Poetry and Aesthetic Realism but I don't think the suggested change is an improvement.

• Plese read WP:MOS#HEADER. That was my intention, to simply remove the repetition of the title in the header. Call it anything otherwise--how about just Poetry? The context is somewhat obvious. Ocaasi ^c 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Change 3

1. Original: Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and racism
2. Edited: Opposition to prejudice and racism

Removing the article (“the”) and the words "Aesthetic Realism" generalizes it in a bad way. It’s not about opposition to prejudice and racism generally, it is about how Aesthetic Realism opposes prejudice and racism. I don’t think this suggested change is an improvement.

• This objection is almost identical to the one directly above it. The title of this article covers every section, and it's standard policy not to repeat that in each section unless there is ambiguity about who/what it is in relation to. I can't see how 'opposition to prejudice and racism' would mean anything except that AR was in opposition to it. Who else would the section be addressing? As for 'the' opposition vs. just 'opposition', I think that is canonizing a part of the organization's activities in a way that is not more accurate than just describing them. President Obama's opposition to racism. vs President Obama and the opposition to racism. vs Opposition to racism (in the President Obama article). vs The opposition to racism (in the President Obama article). You'll probably counter that this was not just a policy perspective, but a whole mission, backed by specific texts and actions; that might make a case for 'the' although I'm still not convinced that it's really necessary. In any event, 'The Opposition to prejudice and racism' would be the same then without repeating the title. In sum, I think the current (Aesthetic Realism and the ____ _____ ) format reads a little bit like a pamphlet rather than an encyclopedia. It has a hint of promotion, in the way it repeats the organization's name and then makes the activity seem more significant by treating it as a definite article with 'the'. Instead, we should use a real noun, such as 'Mission to oppose prejudice and racism', perhaps. Or 'Commitment', etc. Let me know what you think. Ocaasi ^c 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Change 4

1. Original: The organization has also been accused by some ex-students and cult researchers for operating as a cult.
2. Edited: The organization has been accused by some ex-students and cult researchers for operating as a cult.

I have no objection to this change. I don’t know what the “also” was in reference to. LoreMariano (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Lore. Glad to see you (and others) taking the idea of consenus so seriously It moves slowly but can definitely work. I've actually edited here previously as an ip, and made the changes knowing they were only intended to be copy-edits; anything else I would have ran through editors. I think the changes are self-explanatory, but I'll see if there's any confusion and respond individually above. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Revised Headings

I like your suggestion of "Poetry" as a (plain noun) heading and I see your point about the assumption that headings are in context to the entry itself. Changing the others in question, the headings would now read:

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 The arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 Homosexuality

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Prejudice and racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

Do you think "Prejudice and racism" should be changed to simply "Racism"? LoreMariano (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What's under discussion in the Aesthetic Realism and Homosexuality section is not Homosexuality either broadly or per se, so "Homosexuality" would be an inappropriate and uninformative heading. What is discussed is the use that the followers of Aesthetic Realism made of the prevailing societal prejudice against homosexuality to publicize their organizations, by claiming that the study of Aesthetic Realism changed gays into heterosexuals. My suggestion would be to leave the heading alone; if tinkering is required, something more informative than "Homosexuality" would be required, e.g. Advertising the philosophy as a means of changing homosexuals to heterosexuals or Claims regarding the origins and elimination of homosexuality or Assertions that Aesthetic Realism consultations convert gays into straights - Outerlimits (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have only one objection to the proposed changes discussed above: the title "Prejudice and racism" is ambiguous, as it might seem that the philosophy advocates prejudice and racism. This is particularly so as the following title is "Criticism and response." I also object to the one word title "Racism" for exactly the same reason. The text indicates that an important aspect of the philosophy today is its teaching that "Prejudice and racism can change" and I suggest this as most appropriate: "Prejudice and racism can change" 206.16.244.10 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC). Sorry, thought I was logged in. Trouver (talk)

I like Ocaasi's suggested heading: "Mission to oppose prejudice and racsim". LoreMariano (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A swift review of WP:MOS#HEADER convinces me that one-word titles are more appropriate since the context is obviously how the philosophy views each subject, and therefore I no longer oppose "Racism" as a header.Trouver (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make more clear, I support MOSHEADER, but only where the section is equally informative. There's a reasonable concern with both Homosexuality and Racism, that those words by themselves are misleading as sections. Perhaps: 1) Homosexuality therapy, Homosexuality controversy, View of homosexuality... or 2) Opposition to racism, Mission against racism, Campaign against racism, Civil rights movement... I have no major issue with 'racism', 'racism and oppression', or just 'human rights', if that's not too general. Whatever fits the content of the section most completely and neutrally. Ocaasi ^c 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no major issue with 'racism' either. The only reason I changed "Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality" to "homosexuality" was to conform with the others, not intentionally to stir things up. LoreMariano (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisit Heading Titles

Before we go into more discussion about edits to the headings, are you suggesting that we look at all headings with the words "Aesthetic Realism" in the title which would be these five: 2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 4?

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry and Aesthetic Realism

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 Aesthetic Realism and the arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

LoreMariano (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lore, I'm basically proposing that 2, 3.2, 3.4, and 4 have "Aesthetic Realism" removed. What, if anything, is the mention of the organization telling the reader that is not already implied, known, or stated? (I think 3.3 is an exception since the organization is actually the full name of the foundation, and "The Foundation" is a little ambiguous). I have a feeling this will seem like a type of whitewashing to the more AR-sympathetic editors, since it removes the name of the organization/ideology, but I think it's currently acting as a generic placeholder which doesn't add much detail. As mentioned above, WP:MOSHEAD is clear about this: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)."

So the 'unless clearer' part is where we might have some difference of approach. If a case can be made that it's clearer to refer to the title, then that's reasonable, but it should not be the default. Or else, why not call section 1.1 "Major texts of Aesthetic Realism" and 3.5 " Aesthetic Realism and Victim of the Press" and section 5 "Criticism of Aesthetic Realism and response" and section 8 "External links about Aesthetic Realism". I'm belaboring those examples to prove a point. There's no reason I can discern why some of those are right and others wrong. The ones that lack the title still make sense to me, so unless there's an affirmative reason to mention the title, we should remove it. Ocaasi ^c 13:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ocaasi, thanks for editing. We need more impartial editors for this article. However, please don't intersperse your Talk between others' Talk. It makes it difficult to see the chronology of the discussion, and for that reason we all agreed that we wouldn't do that here. But again, thank you for coming by, and I hope you continue to improve the article, especially as I don't have much time to work on it any more myself. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that discussion, but it's not too hard to do. I know this page can move slowly. I was hoping to make a few drive-by improvements and let the gradual article evolution continue on its way. Lore appears to have been doing a very fair job of things, although I'm sure additional neutral editors would be helpful. Ocaasi ^c 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sections on homosexuality and racism

Regarding the concern about the sections on homosexuality and racism, how about: 'Ending Racism' for the section on racism? For the section on homosexuality, I suggest "Approach to Homosexuality". I think it is neutral and clear. LoreMariano (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you explain why that is more fitting than the opposite: 'Ending homosexuality' and 'Approach to racism'? Is it NPOV to use the active verb (ending) for racism but the general term (approach to) for homosexuality? Or is there a more subtle distinction? Ocaasi ^c 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "Approach to Homosexuality" correctly reflects there are many approaches to homosexuality and Aesthetic Realism is one. I thought "Ending Racism" was better because it's shorter than "Commitment to Oppose Racism," but if the active form ("Ending") is not NPOV, "Commitment to Oppose Racism" is okay with me. Is an active form always NPOV? LoreMariano (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many approaches to homosexuality, but the section is about AR's approach. 'Opposition to homosexuality', and 'Opposition to racism'; I'm not necessarily advocating them, but I'm curious why we would use different words. Do you think 'opposition to homosexuality' is inaccurate or too narrow? I don't have a problem with your two suggestions, I'm just trying to figure out if they could be more specific, and if there's a logic about using them. If not, I'm ok with 'Approach to Homosexuality' and 'Opposition to Racism', although I feel like we're concealing a little something in the first title. Ocaasi ^c 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "There are many approaches to homosexuality, but the section is about AR's approach." Yes...perhaps the title should be even more specific to distinguish it from other approaches, for example: "Approach to Homosexuality as a Philosophic Matter." I don't like the idea of making it that long and I think it's clear from the content that the approach is philosophic.

Re: "Do you think 'opposition to homosexuality' is inaccurate or too narrow?" Yes! Narrow and misleading. Aesthetic Realism is for homosexual persons enjoying full, equal civil rights and that title sounds like it's opposed. LoreMariano (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "Changing homosexuality". Granted, even that is a euphemism, since AR's approach would more accurately be described as a purported "cure" (and that's certainly what the NY Times and others called AR's idea. But still, it's way more specific than something too general (and therefore less useful) like "Homosexuality" or "AR and Homosexuality" or "Approach to Homosexuality". Incidentally, here's the NY Times review of AR's first book on the subject, using the word "cure" twice: This is less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers. There is no reason to believe or disbelieve these ex-homosexuals who claim that Eli Siegel put them on the straight and narrow by showing that homosexuality was unaesthetic and therefore contemptuous of life. By the aesthetic realization that Beauty lies in Opposites, they were cured. Nor is there reason to believe that anyone reading this volume would be moved, intrigued, or piqued enough to try the cure. MichaelBluejay 04:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Philosophic approach to homosexuality" seems most specific to me: that is what distinguishes the approach described in this section from others: it is not religious; it is not medical: it is philosophic.Trouver (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lore, I agree that AR did not 'oppose homosexuals' and we shouldn't imply that.

MBJ, 'Changing homosexuality' is getting closer, although it is actually a confusing use of 'changing', since it refers to the category rather than the person; we'd really mean 'Changing homosexuals', or 'Changing homosexual behavior', or ('Changing homosexuals' worldview so they stop being homosexual').

Trouver, 'philosophic' in this context is just restating that AR is a philosophy, rather than a religion or a medicine. That's already established in the intro, and using the term still doesn't tell us that 'the philosophy' about it was intended to change those practices and feelings.

We can be more specific, as long as it doesn't have negative implications. What about 'Homosexuality therapy', or 'Conversion therapy for homosexuals'. Conversion therapy is a recognized term, and to my knowledge it is neither formalized psychology nor formally religious. I have a feeling the word 'therapy' may be a hang-up, but we could also use a different word, such as 'Conversion philosophy for homosexuals.' If we're going back to 'approach', perhaps 'Approach to homosexual conversion' is more apt. I can see 'conversion' being a hang-up, since AR doesn't posit that people 'change' so much as perceptions, in which case it'd be closer to 'Changing perceptions and behavior among homosexuals', or 'Campaign to change perceptions and behavior among homosexuals'. But that is getting a bit unwieldy. Ocaasi ^c 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism has never really performed an honest self-evaluation of its anti-gay teachings and positions; nevertheless, it is shocking when an Aesthetic Realism advocate unashamedly depicts Aesthetic Realism as ever—let alone always—having promoted gay rights in any meaningful way. Charitably, they're simply repeating a lie they've been told and haven't adequately thought about. At a time when, in New York City (Aesthetic Realism's home base), gay sex acts were illegal, and when firing someone (or refusing to rent an apartment to them) because they were gay was legal and considered perfectly acceptable; when New York City cops were routinely raiding gay bars and rounding up their patrons for arrest, Aesthetic Realism did not take out an ad in the New York Times advocating repeal of sodomy laws, or advocating passage of laws that would protect gays from discrimination in housing and employment, or deploring those police actions: instead they took out an ad advocating Aesthetic Realism as the final solution to the homosexual "question". The fact that Aesthetic Realism now finds it convenient to pay lip service to full civil rights for gay men and women doesn't alter that unfortunate history. Since it's a history they now wish to conceal, it has proven to be exceedingly hard to find a heading that is simultaneously honest and something they'd accept. I think it's especially important to avoid headings that accept their claim that conversions actually occurred. "Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals" or "Claims that Aesthetic Realism changes homosexuals into heterosexuals" would be reasonable. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We're using third-party sources to address that section anyway, and they will be considered the least biased when it comes to what AR was up to in that period. Of course, AR's primary texts and organizational statements will get mention in that section as well. It's totally possible that AR applied their philosophy to Homosexuality and then realized it was simply the wrong target, a mistake, or too costly a public relations position. The notion that Homosexuality could be a result of 'incorrectly viewing the world' is an understandable mistake, and one that would have been consistent with AR's philosophy. In a climate of near-global homophobia and misinformation, I don't view it as an indelible black mark on their history, so much as a misstep and a misapplication of an otherwise well-intentioned notion. Simply put, homosexuality is 'abberant' as in, not the norm, and AR is about not hating the norm, or 'reality'. If one makes the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and natural, then seeing homosexuality as a perceptional deviation just follows 'logically' or 'philosophically'.

Of course that's now considered backwards, insulting, incorrect, and dehumanizing, but AR was no more informed about Homosexuality in that period than many, and the fact that they held on to the notion they could 'help' people shouldn't condemn them today. Then again, they shouldn't try to make it seem like that period was somehow 'not' about changing individual homosexual behavior, cause one way or another that's what it was. It also doesn't mean that you can't help someone without being prejudiced against them. If I try and help someone who's sick, it doesn't mean I don't want sick people to have equal rights. Now homosexuals weren't/aren't sick, but the point is the same--you can believe people deserve rights but still want to change what they do.

What AR says and does now is relevant, because organizations can change their positions and many have. Many churches which used to oppose gay anything now have openly gay congregants preachers. Many people who used to be homophobic now recognize family or friends or themselves as members of that groups, and have changed their attitudes entirely. As long as we don't whitewash the history, we don't have to make it sound like the organization is still promoting something they claim to have left behind (unless we have modern RS which comment on it directly).

I think the proposed titles in my comment before yours are slightly more acceptable without being inaccurate. I'll list all the options here for a discussion/vote! below. Ocaasi ^c 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that Aesthetic Realism's positions on homosexuality have changed: they have not. Aesthetic Realism affirms that they still believe everything Siegel taught about homosexuality, and that they still believe that Aesthetic Realism is the mechanism through which gay people have become straight people. What has changed is only that they are more hesitant to state their beliefs openly, and they no longer use the claim that AR is efficacious in eliminating homosexuality as an inducement to involve people in AR activities. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OL, can you provide me a link, ideally to the AR foundation's website where they maintain that people 'changing' from homosexuality to heterosexuality is still promoted, sought, or accomplished today? Ocaasi ^c 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What to call it?

• Homosexuality
• Approach to homosexuality
• Philosophic approach to homosexuality
• Homosexuality conversion therapy
• Claims of homosexuality conversion
• Attempts at homosexuality conversion
• Homosexuality conversion through the philosophy
• Homosexuality and conversion
• Homosexual conversion
• Homosexuality conversion
• Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals
• Changing homosexuals
• Opposition to homosexuality
• Ending homosexuality
• Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals

add to this list if you have an option, preferably a short, detailed, neutral option

Comments/Vote! (non-binding of course, just a quick poll)

• Homosexuality conversion - I think it's short, on topic, emphasizes that their was an intended 'change' and it uses a recognized word in the context of preference modification. Ocaasi ^c 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the post of Outerlimits: This editor has a right to his opinions, but the phrase "final solution to the homosexual question" with its clear reference to Nazi atrocities is grossly insulting, and has no place on these pages. I changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism and I know that it has always been for justice and full civil rights for all people, including homosexuals. If, for example, men and women have the right to change their sex (and they should have that right), shouldn't there also be the right to change one's sexual preference, if that is what a person wants?

As to the suggestions of Ocassi, I think “homosexuality conversion” comes across as making things too narrow. I think “approach to homosexuality” is neutral and clear. CSaguaro (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was Eli Siegel who formulated (and published) his thoughts on the matter in terms of a homosexual "question" requiring a solution, not I. I agree that his formulation was grossly insulting, and both disrespectful and contemptuous of his fellow humans, but it's history. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the description posted above by Outerlimits is incorrect and insulting. I vote for "Approach to homosexuality" or simply "Homosexuality" or, if agreement cannot be reached, let the existing heading stand.Trouver (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Outerlimits and Trouver, if you're going to make claims of correctness and incorrectness, you'll have to provide a quotation from a primary or secondary source. Otherwise there's no point in slinging accusations and refutations around. This can wait you actually draft the section drafting anyway. Ocaasi ^c 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals" or "Claims that Aesthetic Realism changes homosexuals into heterosexuals" are both inaccurate because the change does exist. The basis for the change is philosophic. I would be for "A Philosophic Approach to Homosexuality" or "The Change from Homosexuality." LoreMariano (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't use 'The Change' because that states as fact what is only a claim from AR and from those individuals. We don't have neutral verification or acceptance of such a change, so it can't be stated as such in the header. What do you see as wrong with Homosexuality conversion? Ocaasi ^c 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

CSaguaro, I agree that 'final solution' was a poor choice of words. Outerlimits, knowing how controversial this subject already is, can you try and leave such turns of phrase out of the discussion?

Lore, you recognize that AR's 'approach' to homosexuality is about 'changing' homosexuals into heterosexuals; thus, omitting any mention of that in the section title would not reflect the distinguishing content of that section. Also, AR's reports that people changed sexual behavior/orientation, or even those individual's claims themselves that such a change happened, have to be attributed to someone; we won't write 'Homosexuals changed' but rather 'according to XYZ, these individuals changed sexual orientation after studying AR'. (The vast majority of mainstream psychologists and scientists believe that people cannot change their sexual orientation, only perhaps their behavior. To use the word 'changed' without attributing the statement with 'said they changed' or 'according to AR members' would be to ascribe a certainty to the transition for which we don't have a neutral judge and about a transition that is presumed by experts to not actually happen). So we can't state it as fact, but we can state that others state it as fact. The policy on this is WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Ocaasi ^c 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you're invaluable here because you're a neutral third party, but to make the best contribution you're going to have to pay a little closer attention. The Aesthetic Realists are trying to whitewash both their history and their current opinions, and it looks like you're falling for it. The question isn't whether AR currently promotes itself as a solution to gayness. They don't, and nobody says they does. But by pretending that's what the issue is, they successfully distract you from the *real* issues. Two of those real issues are, how does AR see homosexuality, and do they regret their earlier efforts to "fix" gays? The answers to both are easy: In their books they described gayness as "unethical" and "a form of selfishness", and they've never, ever said they were wrong, much less offered any kind of apology or expression of regret. They smokescreen by saying, "We're for full civil rights for everyone!" That's true, they believe that gays should have civil rights, but that's not incompatible with their belief that gays have a mental problem that can be fixed by Aesthetic Realism. Ask them to show you any evidence that their opinion on the issue has changed, or where they published their retraction or apology. There's no such animal. Heck, in LoreMariano's response above, she says, "[T]he change does exist. The basic of the change is philosophic..." See? It'll be a cold day in hell before the Aesthetic Realists ever concede that their savior, Eli Siegel, was ever wrong about anything. After all, they believe, in their own words, that he was "The greatest human being ever to live." You don't have to decide which of the competing voices here you should trust, just look at the evidence. As for the poll, the most accurate and descriptive would be "Homosexuality conversion therapy", "Ending homosexuality", and "Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals". MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

MBJ, respectfully, since we haven't drafted the actual section (anew) and all we're talking about is the title, I don't see how my proposal for Homosexuality conversion conceals any of what sources describe, or that I've fallen for anything. I assume that we would cite directly from the H Persuasion, as well as any reviews of the book, as well as Counteringthelies, and the ARfoundation website. We would do all of those things. I don't care if AR wants to whitewash their history, only that we cover what the sources present. I'll leave the truth to the sources.

So back to the title, do you think Homosexuality conversion is appropriate, or would you push for Opposition to homosexuality. I think that's going to be a very tough sell, considering the AR supporters want the general Approach to homosexuality. I'm just interested in the fact that there was a mission to change homosexuals to be in the section header if possible. Ocaasi ^c 06:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "Homosexuality conversion" doesn't conceal anything, it just wasn't in my top three, because it's rather awkward. "Opposition to homosexuality" isn't a good title. AR was way more focused on trying to change gays than on criticizing homosexuality itself. They did some of the latter, sure, but not nearly to the extent that they did the former. And what we're really concerned about here is that AR thought it had a way to "fix" gays and carried and a program to try to do so. They didn't buy big ads in the major newspapers saying, "Homosexuality is wrong," they bought ads in the newspapers saying, "It's a beautiful fact that men and women can change from homosexuality by studying the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel." And yeah, I'm the first to say that AR frequently whitewashes and obfuscates so that we can't take them at their word, but in this case I think we can. Anyway, here are the titles that are acceptable to me, ranked in my order of preference, slightly edited:

• Homosexuality conversion therapy
• Claims of conversion from homosexuality
• Attempts at converting gays to straight
• Homosexuality conversion through the philosophy
• Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals
• Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals
• Changing homosexuals
• Ending homosexuality

Not acceptable:

• Homosexuality (too vague)
• Approach to Homosexuality (too vague)
• Philosophic approach to homosexuality (too vague)
• Homosexuality and conversion (too vague)
• Homosexual conversion (awkward)
• Homosexuality conversion (awkward)
• Opposition to homosexuality (not accurate) MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we found a better choice than either 'changing homosexuals' or 'homosexuality conversion'. We'll have to wait for Lore and Trouver to comment. I'm not ok with you saying, " I'm the first to say that AR frequently whitewashes and obfuscates so that we can't take them at their word, ". Whatever your personal opinion of AR or AR editors is (even, hypothetically, if it's correct), such personal commentary on the subject or on other editors can only make this page worse and are pretty much explicitly prohibited by policy. Focus on content, not contributors. Ocaasi ^c 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments on the first list of titles:

• Homosexuality conversion therapy (not accurate, Aesthetic Realism is not therapy)
• Claims of conversion from homosexuality (not accurate, the change is not a claim)
• Attempts at converting gays to straight (not accurate, the change is not an attempt, it happened)
• Homosexuality conversion through the philosophy ("Conversion" has the connotation of a transformation through religion)
• Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals (see comment on use of "Attempts" above)
• Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals (see comment on "Claims" above)
• Changing homosexuals (Sounds aimed at a group of people, it's not descriptive of an approach to homosexuality as a subject)
• Ending homosexuality (I like this best out of this group but the change is presently not taught and so it likely shouldn't be active ("Ending")

How about "Change from homosexuality" - without "the" (ratifying a change) and without "claim" (calling into question its authenticity)? Or, in keeping with Ocaasi's comment to me above, "Assertion that men and women changed from homosexuality" which arises naturally out of the section content. The first sentence of that section is: "A controversial aspect of the philosophy concerns the assertion that men and women could change from homosexuality through studying its principles." LoreMariano (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would accept "Change from homosexuality" or "Assertion that men and women changed from homosexuality" or "Assertion that homosexuality changed." Please note that since the goal is to describe the organization "as it sees itself" before opposing views are presented (as they are in the section that follows) other suggested titles are inappropriate. Primary AR sources never use the words "conversion" "therapy" "solution" or "cure" in relation to homosexuality, which is never referred to as an "illness" but as a "preference" or "persuasion." Trouver (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lore, as predicted, the word 'therapy' is an issue. I'd prefer Homosexuality conversion philosophy then. Using the word 'change' is a problem, because it states as fact something which is controversial and must be attributed to those individuals and to AR. It would require a word such as 'claim', 'assertion', or 'attempt'. Also, Homosexuality conversion controversy would be acceptable to me. If you don't care for 'conversion', we could try Homosexuality reorientation philosophy. Even though AR uses some words such as "fair" or "change" does not mean Wikipedia will use those words. We use the most commonly words that fit, unless we are going to attribute the usage or "quote" it directly. Ocaasi ^c 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouver, I'm glad you are in the mix here, but your assertion that we are supposed to primarily describe AR as it sees itself runs afoul of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure: Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. WP:NPOV is quite clear that even headers must abide by NPOV policy. This means we will first summarize the entire subject, starting with the most reliable sources. Then we'll present AR claims, including primary texts and organization statements. Then we'll present counter-claims, if we can find RS for them. We're supposed to describe all points of view neutrally, and in proportion to how they appear in reliable sources. We can state undisputed facts as such, but they must be undisputed in RS, and my personal preference, also uncontroversial. If there's a debate, we describe the debate while attributing points of view. Although we will at some point give AR's point of view 'from the inside', that does not begin in the header. Ocaasi ^c 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I object to 'conversion' for the reason I stated earlier (‘conversion’ has the connotation of a transformation through religion). ‘Reorientation’ is not good because it implies that one can’t really change, only reorient oneself. I'm not trying to be difficult but it has to be accurate.

What about a title which states there was controversy surrounding the assertion that homosexuality could change?, Can everyone live that? i.e.,

• Controversy about the assertion homosexuality changed
• Controversy about philosophic approach to homosexuality
• Controversy about change from homosexuality

LoreMariano (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (arbitrary break)

According to our article on conversion therapy, "The American Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation." It strikes me that conversion philosophy would be philosophy aimed at changing sexual orientation. Homosexuality and claims of changing sexual orientation or Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation might also work. If we can't solve this soon, we should draft the section first, and just use a neutral title in the meantime (Approach to Homosexuality is neutral, although too general IMO). Ocaasi ^c 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You refer to drafting a new section. There was a very lengthy process with various editors (myself included) involved in gathering and reviewing sources, rewriting this article, all the while forging consensus. This took months and months and was completed only a few months ago. I see no reason why it is being suggested that this section be rewritten.

As to titles, I would be for “Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation.” CSaguaro (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK with me.Trouver (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok with me. CSaguaro, I think the draft looks ok, but I wasn't aware it was final. It looks neutral but a bit light on primary sources as well as critical commentary from secondary sources in the period. For now, let's jut focus on the title. Ocaasi ^c 01:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. AR's attempts to change gays was certainly in the form of therapy. AR called it "consultations", but independents called it therapy, like the Village Voice.[9] Here's a transcript of one such session, see if it doesn't fit what a *reasonable person* would consider to be therapy.[10]
2. There is no such thing as a final Wikipedia article. WP is dynamic by definition. I wouldn't call the current version consensus, either, as I never agreed to it. I simply ran out of time to keep objecting. I'm all for a rewrite. MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We're going to have to defer to sources here. Most journalists, doctors, and psychologists would call it therapy, while AR folks just consider it philosophical education, I think to distinguish it from mere psychoanalyzing which is perceived to not be effective (whereas AR is perceived to be uniquely effective?). I think we're going to have to take a look at the section again and then go from there. Let's skip this one for now. Anyone have a problem with the other shortened section headers? If not, they can be added back. Ocaasi ^c

Aesthetic Realism consultations are a philosophic approach to the self that use the literature and art of the world to show what the self is. In consultations, a person learns about the (philosophic) principles of Aesthetic Realism such as, the largest fight in the life of every person is between contempt and respect. This goes for everyone--man, woman, child. The criticism one hears is based on seeing a self aesthetically, as trying to put opposites together. For instance, in consultations, I was asked questions about the division I had made between what I showed outwardly and what I thought to myself. I didn't know how to be an accurate critic of the men I knew and I also thought I could easily fool them by my appearance. I was given the assignment to read Jane Eyre as a means of learning what it means to have good will for a man instead of narrowly wanting to conquer as a means of making myself falsely important.

I'm not so sure most journalists, doctors and psychologists would call Aesthetic Realism consultations therapy, I think it's inexact to say that. Aesthetic Realism Consultants are not therapists. At any rate, this isn't the place to discuss the philosophy but I can assure you it is nothing like therapy! I wanted to make the difference clear because I studied at length in consultations myself.

re: titles. I'm a bit confused about where we stand. Is this the current proposed list:

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 The arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Commitment to end racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

If these are correct, I'm okay with them. LoreMariano (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with those, certainly for now. Two questions/suggestions: I think 'Mission to end racism' or 'Campaign to end racism' might be slightly better, since they focus on the actions rather than just the disposition. Also, why is Racism not part of the history section but Homosexuality is? (Has AR stopped its Homosexual counseling?) Ocaasi ^c 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look, are 'The arts' and 'Aesthetic Realism Foundation' historical? Or should they be moved out to separate sections? Ocaasi ^c 22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation" still needs work, as it implies that AR changes sexual orientation (in one direction only, of course). That's a decidedly fringe view and shouldn't be put in a way that implies Wikipedia endorses AR's assertion. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, look at the last sentence in the section on homosexuality. Presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality were discontinued in 1990.

Re: section on racism -- although there is a lot of current work done on ending racism, there is no official mission or campaign to end racism by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation that I am aware of. The purpose of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is described in the info box in the article: "Aesthetic Realism, founded in 1941 by poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902-78), is a philosophy dedicated to the understanding of, and greater respect for, people, art, and reality."

The section on the arts and ARF both contain a lot of historical content so my opinion is that they're good where they are.

I don't see how "Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation" is an endorsement, it's a subject. However, for simplicity's sake, I suggest we change it back to 'homosexuality' and change the racism section back to 'opposition to prejudice and racism'. LoreMariano (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this latest questioning, how about the more neutral title: “Approach to Homosexuality” or simply “Homosexuality”?

Also, let’s not forget at one time the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was considered a fringe idea. CSaguaro (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lore, I think Opposition to prejudice and racism is good, and better than 'commitment' or 'mission' as you've described them. 'Opposition to racism' is better still, if you think it's inclusive enough.

CSaguaro, Approach to Homosexuality is ok, but it does omit the critical aspect of the approach, the claim that AR can change sexual orientation to heterosexuality, and the fact that this was controversial at the time. How about Homosexuality change controversy, which would include both the positive assertions of changes, as well as the negative backlash it received.

I have no idea what your reference to geocentrism suggests--perhaps that one day we will view AR as the Galileo's of sexual orientation? You may believe so, but we'd need a whole ream of sources to get past the current scientific consensus; Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball anyway, so whatever 'could' happen in the future is of no issue here and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Ocaasi ^c 00:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'Opposition to racism' is a better heading. LoreMariano (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for Homosexuality Change Controversy. I feel it has a congested quality and doesn't have a natural sound. Also, I question the word controversy—I know it’s in the first sentence of the section. But as part of the title it seems too intense; it over-emphasizes the sense of conflict. I thought the word “reaction” might be more accurate and as an alternative suggest Philosophic Approach to Homosexuality and Reaction to It or Philosophic Approach to Changing Homosexuality and Reaction to It. I think they capture what is in the section and are neutral. CSaguaro (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think tone matters, but not more than accuracy and weight. That section--and the history of AR--is both about the philosophic approach and the controversy it created. Both. In fact, the controversy was so terrible that AR decided to stop promoting the philosophic approach in that area. How could an accurate title leave that out? If AR wants this part of their organization's history to be minimized (not out of shame but because the effect was counter to their broader goals), is that a reason Wikipedia can consider in its phrasing? The title you've suggested has three major concessions to AR: 1) philosophic approach; 2) changing homosexuality; and 3) reaction. A title proposed by someone not as sympathetic would just be Homosexuality conversion controversy and be done with it. Let's look at the differences.

1) AR is a philosophy by self-definition, so anything it does will be philosophic, at least in approach. The choice of this word is to distinguish it from 'therapy' which is mainstream and perceived by AR to be ineffective. Conversion is a word borrowed from the therapeutic and religious contexts, but it has deep roots in attempts at changing sexual orientation/attraction/behavior.

2) It is AR's claim that individuals changed their sexual orientation. This claim is not verified by independent sources. Therefore any time we use the phrase, we have to attribute the claim to AR, or the specific individuals/group of individuals who made the claim. I believe it's accurate to say that mainstream science/psychology did not accept AR's claims in this area as truthful--so much so that AR embarked on calling all of the media willfully neglectful and itself a victim of the press for suppressing those claims. But if the entire media (and scientific establishment) didn't accept and report on those claims, then Wikipedia, as a neutral body which weighs reliable sources (our definition WP:RS not AR's), could not possibly use the word as a plain fact; it must be attributed.

3) Reaction is a general word. Why would we be general when the reaction was almost solely negativity, skepticism, and bad press. AR does not deny this, I believe, else why would Victim of the Press have followed?

I hope looking at those 3 issues gives you a better idea why the title you suggested is not appropriate for this section. I'm not sure what the best one is yet, but you can be sure it's different. Now one possibility is to break down the issue into subsections, with the main header reading 'Homosexuality' and subheaders 'Philosophic approach', 'Change claims', and 'Controversy'. Or we could cram those into a single header as Philosophic approach to homosexuality, claims of 'change', and controversy. Ocaasi ^c 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not so sure most journalists, doctors and psychologists would call Aesthetic Realism consultations therapy." We've been over this before. There are lots of references on the Sources page showing that they call it that very thing.

I still stand by my rec's for the H section, with my top pick being "Homosexuality conversion therapy", which is short, descriptive, accurate, and neutral. "Approach to homosexuality" is insufficient because it doesn't describe the attempts to change gays.

"I think Opposition to prejudice and racism is good." I'm afraid I have to object, because AR's goal in trumpeting its supposed answer to racism isn't to end racism so much as it is to promote AR itself. This is just like what they did with the gay issue, though at least this time they picked a more palatable target. I know I can't prove this and so I'm not suggesting that we write the article from that perspective, but neither do we write it in AR's favor either, as though their efforts were completely pure. I would suggest "Answer to racism" with that phrase in quotes, showing that we're quoting the way they describe it themselves (it's the title of their book), so that WP isn't taking a stand one way or the other on whether their efforts really genuine or not.

I think Ocaasi has a good handle on the issues surrounding the wording of the headings. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with "Answer to Racism". LoreMariano (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess as long as it's in quotes it's okay. If we want to go the particular 'phrase with quotes' route, that's one solution. It avoids debating the pros and cons of paraphrases, though it also suggest we don't have very good independent secondary sources which used their own term either.

Just an idea, then. Would "The H Persuasion" be a sufficient title for the Homosexuality section, or does that overly obscure the topic?

MBJ, if we can avoid speculating on the real motives of AR, for good or bad, it would help. Without sources, it's irrelevant and only makes it harder to work on this. Ocaasi ^c 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think adopting AR's idiosyncratic terminology is an option; no one else in the world uses the very coy phrase "H Persuasion" and no one not already involved in AR would recognize what it means. The press coverage of AR's ex-gay publicity push was much more honest and plain-spoken: The headline for a 1989 news article about <name redacted for BLP concerns> read: "Homosexuals can be cured, says ex-gay: Preacher goes straight and weds former lesbian" and begins "Homosexuals can be cured of their limp-wristed lifestyle by changing their outlook about themselves and the world, says a married preacher who was gay." AR was cautious about using the term "cure", but the press was not, and we're writing this article for the general public, not AR. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OL, the only reason to use that was as the literal title of the book, not to adopt the terminology in Wikipedia's voice. The header would be formatted as a book title (quotes, or italics, I forget which is MOS). If it doesn't work that's fine. BTW, have you included all such sources as the 1989 article on the sources/criticism page? Ocaasi ^c 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But the section isn't about the book, it's about AR's ex-gay advertising campaign/movement. I'm not certain which page you mean by "sources/criticism page", but no, it's not included because it's not the source for anything in the article, and if anything, it's completely laudatory, not critical. if you want to view it, it appeared in the Weekly World News September 12, 1989, p. 41, and can be found on Google books here - Outerlimits (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, though it was possible the book's title could stand in for the philosophy and controversy had it been more commonly named. The sources page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/sources , it's just a sub-page of this talk page, and it's linked in the header templates at the top. Weekly World News, though, is not RS. Ocaasi ^c 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the book's title as the title for the section would be Wikipedia adopting AR's viewpoint...not consistent with NPOV. And, yes, I suppose status as a RS might be pertinent if anyone had proposed using as a source for the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If a source isn't good enough for the article, then it's probably not good enough to enlighten our discussion on the talk page either. The same issues of reliability are there, and I wouldn't trust the quotes from WWN, regardless of where they are. Although they ran some human interest features, they did not have a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' even in those articles, mixed in with stories of alien babies and the like. Ocaasi ^c 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The WWN is a perfectly good source when quoted to demonstrate what the press labeled AR's gay conversion efforts. I didn't quote it for the truth of the matter stated, but rather as an example of press coverage. It falls well within Wikipedia's policy when used for that purpose. - Outerlimits (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure about that, seriously. I very well understand using sources as evidence of their own views/behavior (or their own groups' views/behavior), but the problem is that WWN is not representative member of the press. The only thing it is RS for is how semi-fictional tabloids covered AR, which is a category of almost no use at all. If you're not sure about this, we can bring it up at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN to get some other opinions. That said, I think it's pretty academic and unlikely to effect the discussion here either way. Ocaasi ^c 23:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (Arbitrary break #2)

Ocaasi, mentioning my feelings on AR's motivations was necessary in order to explain why I objected to the proposed heading. As for the gay change section header, I agree with OL, "H Persuasion" is too obtuse, and the section is about their gay change program, not the book. About the book, the full title is: "The H Persuasion: How Persons Have Permanently Changed from Homosexuality Through the Study of Aesthetic Realism With Eli Siegel". I'd agree to a section heading of "Change" from homosexuality. The quotes serve double-duty: We're quoting AR's actual word, while distancing ourselves from asserting that it really happened. MichaelBluejay (talk)

I know how you feel about AR. I think it's clear what your position is, so I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it here. Ideally there is a completely non-personal reason why a change is or is not appropriate. If we need to resort to presumptions or personal experience, we haven't found it. I agree that H Persuasion is not detailed enough (and the full title is long!). "Change" from homosexuality is okay, although I find the quotes less than ideal. (Even where they are appropriate, they can cast doubt in the readers mind. And even if that doubt is appropriate, we don't want to make it seem like it's Wikipedia's doubt rather than sources', although quotes may be our best option). So...

1. "Change" from homosexuality
2. Homosexuality conversion therapy
3. Homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)
4. Approach to homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)
5. Homosexuality "change"
6. Homosexuality "change" and controversy
7. Homosexuality conversion controversy

I'm more or less okay with any of these. Rather than point out the ones you couldn't accept, can you list the ones you could, and we'll go from there. Ocaasi ^c 06:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"change" used in that way is again fairly idiosyncratic AR diction rather than the way a normal person speaks. And using quotation marks to indicate doubt is discouraged; the proper way to go is to attribute doubted claims, thus:

1. Claims of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism or
2. Claims that homosexuals converted to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism

I think the second is probably better. Outerlimits (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with these, though they're a bit wordy and don't mention controversy. Also, is 'through AR' implied? Ocaasi ^c 18:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not for these titles. Concerning the words conversion and change: the word conversion has a clear religious connotation--changing or accepting a set of beliefs or opinions. The men who say they were once homosexual and are now heterosexual did not convert. Through education they learned about themselves and the world, their way of seeing people and things changed so deeply that how their bodies responded also changed. It is not conversion. It is change. And the word is not idiosyncratic. I think it's simple and clear and describes what these men (myself included) say happened. In an attempt to have neutrality in the matter of change—could there be “assertion of change”? I modified one of the titles on Ocaasi's list:

Approach to Homosexuality, Assertion of Change, and Controversy CSaguaro (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem not labeling the controversy as such in a heading. As for the contention that "conversion" carries only a religious meaning, it's simply not true; in fact many ex-gay groups who label themselves "conversion therapy" are explicitly non-religious. Using the word "change" isn't a problem, it just has to be precisely used. I would have no particular problem with Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism, though it's slightly goofier than using the perfectly accurate "converted", or better yet, Claims that homosexuals became heterosexual through Aesthetic Realism. Perhaps we should simply adopt the language used by the Boston Globe (see source page) — something like "Emphasis on changing homosexuals into heterosexuals". - Outerlimits (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OL is right that conversion is absolutely the word used by mainstream sources to describe this. Now it's possible AR views their version of ending homosexual behavior/attraction/identity as somehow fundamentally different than a Christian conversion therapist. CSaguaro, I think religious scholars would describe--a change so deep that it happens in the core of your understanding and worldview--as exactly what a conversion means (or should mean). Conversion is not a trivial switching of teams or allegiances; in spirit it is supposed to be exactly as you described it for any religious individual, or any individual going through major changes. "Assertion of change" is an alright phrase, and Assertion is less weasel-y than "Claim". So:

1. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
2. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
3. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
4. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
5. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
6. Emphasis on changing homosexuals into heterosexuals

These all look okay, but are on the wordy side for headers. Short is better if possible. I'm starting to lean towards a more general header (Approach to homosexuality) with sub-headers (Assertion of change, and Controversy). Ocaasi ^c 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, in the same breath that you say you say you think you understand my feelings, you show that you don't. My objections aren't "personal", and it's offensive for you to trivialize them as such. Anyway, in your earlier list, I would agree to #'s 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (and not 3 & 4). In your most recent list, the only one I could agree to is #3, since the remainder are way too verbose. But I could agree to a modified #6 if it were "Efforts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals" (or even better, "Efforts to change gays to straight"). MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't know how you feel about AR, but I know what you've written about AR. There's a great deal of information which makes clear your position on what they do and why. I don't think it particularly helps us to bring up that point of view on this page, since we're going to rely on sources in the end anyway. What I meant by personal was not so much about your position but rather your comments on others editors' motivations. If it appears someone suggested something which is not a good heading, for example, I prefer to just say why that's not a good heading, or that it might obscure topic x, rather than suggest that they are trying to obscure topic x. This is often just semantics, but this is a Wiki, and words are all we have. I'm trying to keep the editing content-centric and efficient, in the interest of getting good results and avoiding the battleground between group supporters and critics.

Thanks for finding some consensus on titles. If we just pare down the list that people are okay with, maybe the intersection will be a viable one (rather than an empty set). I'm curious why you don't care for #3 and #4. Although the main title is general, the bolded sub-sections would be very specific. Here's the ever expanding but converging list:

1. Homosexuality
2. Homosexuality "change"
3. Approach to homosexuality
4. "Change" from homosexuality
5. Efforts to change gays to straight
6. Homosexuality conversion therapy
7. Homosexuality conversion controversy
8. Homosexuality, "change", and controversy
9. Efforts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals
10. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
11. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
12. Emphasis on changing homosexuals into heterosexuals
13. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
14. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
15. Claims of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism
16. Claims that homosexuals converted to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism
17. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
18. Homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)
19. Approach to homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)

There are objections to using: "conversion", "change" if not in quotes, "therapy", and "emphasis". "Assertion" is preferred to "claim". My vote is still for Homosexuality, "change" and controversy but I'm okay with any here. All we need is ONE that all can work with. If this was a clever game (and I was in control of it), I'd say everyone should pick numbers they're ok with, and if there wasn't a group match I'd just write it myself. Or everyone should unbold the ones they don't like and we'll see what's left. Or... we can ask Will Beback to pick? Maybe everyone could just write out the one's they're ok below with and we'll see if there's an overlap. Ocaasi ^c 05:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Before I say which titles I'm for, some preliminary comments.

The word "change". As has been said Wikipedia should neither endorse nor discredit what is being said. I think the quotes around change definitely present that change negatively, as suspect, fake, not creditable. A title with the word change not in quotes or the phrase "assertion of change" (without any quotes) would be preferable.

The word "claim" as stated above is POV and not acceptable.

Here are the titles I would be for, using your numbering:

1. Homosexuality

3. Approach to Homosexuality

8. Homosexuality, Change, Controversy

11. Assertion that Homosexuality Changed (I cut the "to Heterosexuality")

13. Approach to Homosexuality, assertion of change, controversy

Also, I propose the following:

Homosexuality, Change, Reaction

Approach to Homosexuality, assertion of change, reaction

Homosexuality: Change and Controversy CSaguaro (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I could live with any except 1, 3, 18, and 19, which are not descriptive enough. MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (break 3)

Ok, that's significant overlap so far. Are there objections to (new numbers and small variations):

1. Homosexuality, change, and controversy
2. Homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
3. Homosexuality, claim of change, and controversy
4. Approach to homosexuality, change, and controversy
5. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
6. Approach to homosexuality, claim of change, and controversy

For my taste, these are inclusive, reasonably short, and neutral. CSaguaro, "Reaction" doesn't work since it's generic, just like "backlash" would be too descriptive the other direction. I think "controversy" is most on target. Note that the above capitalizations are correct and only the first letter of the title is capitalized. Homosexuality is not a proper noun, so it would not be capitalized unless it's the first word of the title. Ocaasi ^c 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They're short, but nearly perfectly uninformative. Much better to have a heading that actually has meaning, such as Claims that homosexuals converted to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism; Claims that homosexuality is caused by contempt; Claims that Aesthetic Realism eliminates homosexuality in those who study it; Claims that Aesthetic Realism caused homosexuals to become heterosexuals. The section isn't about "homosexuality" in general, or "change" in general, or "controversy" in general, it's about Siegel's specific teachings about the nature of homosexuality and the claimed effect of Aesthetic Realism in making homosexuals heterosexual, and the controversy over that claim specifically. - Outerlimits (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC). - Outerlimits (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the titles on Ocaasi’s list are the best we have. I would be for #1,2,4 or 5. The titles suggested by Outerlimits are too long and especially with the weasel word “claim” would not work. CSaguaro (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, I added 'and' after the 2nd comma; that was a grammatical oversight. OL, I wouldn't mind some more detail if we were going to use a header/sub-header approach. But MBJ seemed to want the points all in the main heading, and if that's the case, I'm wary of using excessively long titles that approach a POV. We still have the text itself to do the job of explaining details, and if it's not getting across what you're suggesting, we have a bigger issue. These are more detailed, are they better? Ocaasi ^c 01:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Approach to homosexuality, assertions of changed sexual orientation, and controversy
2. Approach to homosexuality, claims of changed sexual orientation, and controversy
3. View of homosexuality, assertions of changed sexual orientation, and controversy
4. View of homosexuality, claims of changed sexual orientation, and controversy

They are certainly better. They can also be changed from three clauses to two without loss of precision:

1. Controversial approach to homosexuality, and assertions of changed sexual orientation
2. Controversial approach to homosexuality, and claims of changed sexual orientation
3. Controversial views on homosexuality, and assertions of changed sexual orientation
4. Controversial views on homosexuality, and claims of changed sexual orientation or even
5. Controversial claims about homosexuals and changing sexual orientation

- Outerlimits (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that, but I have a feeling AR friends will be. Fairly so, if it suggests that controversy was inherent to the approach rather than something that followed it. (I've made similar objections to calling astrology 'a pseudoscientific practice' rather than 'a practice, which is pseudoscientific'). OL, if you're okay with 'assertions' then we should scrub them from the list to pare down further. Ocaasi ^c 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm exceptionally sympathetic to Outerlimits' desire to have enough description in the heading, because insufficient detail isn't just euphemistic, it also does a disservice to the reader by not properly informing them what a section is about before they read it. On the other hand, the proposed headings are really unwieldy. That's why I like "claim" much better than "assertion", simply because it's shorter. I don't feel any semantic difference between them. I also much prefer "controversy" to "controversial views on homosexuality", because what views on homosexuality *aren't* controversial, even contemporary, mainstream ones? What was more controversial in this case wasn't AR's "views" but rather its efforts to change people, to the point that they felt they had to close up shop on that one, for whatever reason. Anyway, I think we can both use far fewer words as well as be exceptionally clear and descriptive. My suggestions are:

1. Efforts to change gays to straight
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation
3. Claims that gays can be changed to straight
4. Claims that sexual orientation can be changed
5. Assertions that gays can be changed to straight
6. Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed
7. "Cure" for homosexuality

I know that the AR people will object to the word "cure", but that's what independents called it, like the New York Times. I would certainly put it in quotes, and the article would have to make clear that AR never used that term itself. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well this might be in the wrong direction, since previously both you and CSag seemed on the same page, but it's only more options, so maybe they'll be useful. I prefer 2, 4, and 6 of that group. On a factual question, did AR only seek to counsel only male homosexuals or also females? #7 is interesting, but only seems fair if we did it in a balanced way: Homosexuality "change", homosexuality "cure" or Homosexuality change, homosexuality cure, which is a little newsy. Just a reminder that Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy was approaching broader acceptance (3/6) (CSag, Oca, MBJ/Lore, OL, Trouver). Ocaasi ^c 08:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, AR counseled both gay men and lesbians, marrying them off to each other, but their big publicity campaign centered squarely on gay men. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do think these later titles are in the wrong direction. The words claim and cure are not neutral. I don't think the word assertion should be made plural. Although one man who said he changed is named, the section is not a listing of the different men who said they changed. This section is presenting (through RS) Aesthetic Realism’s approach to homosexuality as a philosophic matter related to the questions all people have. It is about the fact that through studying Aesthetic Realism men said that how they saw the world changed and homosexuality changed as well. That is the one assertion that is made. And the section is also about the controversy that this made for. I am still in favor of Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy. CSaguaro (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable regarding assertion/assertions. Also, it's not only historical, since the assertion is still made, just not publicly I believe (that might be a contradiction though). 'Claim' is touchy, although it's only different from assertion in connotation. So, closest I can see is:

1. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
2. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of changing sexual orientation, and controversy
3. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of changing gays to straight, and controversy
4. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of changing to heterosexuality, and controversy

Are these in some variation workable? Ocaasi ^c 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be for # 1 and 4. CSaguaro (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the difficulty is that #1 doesn't say what is changed, or to what. #4 is better, but it still isn't clear about the assertion. The assertion is that men (also a few women) changed from homosexuals to heterosexuals by studying AR. Surely we can find room in the heading to explicitly state the assertion being made. It's the principal claim that sets AR apart from mainstream opinion on the subject, and is far more important than the fact that it engendered controversy, or represents an "approach" to homosexuality: Assertion that homosexuals became heterosexual by studying Aesthetic Realism gets the job done. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to be as agreeable as possible but I don't want that to be at the expense of a good article. The most recent suggestions are just terrible. They're too vague, as Outerlimits said, as well as too long. I don't like OL's suggestion either because it's too long and awkward. The more I look at the recent 7 I suggested, the more I think they're the only ones that meet the goal of having a descriptive, understandable, accurate, and non-awkward heading. Ocaasi, regarding changing lesbians, I've invited you before to have a look at my website to see original source documents, articles, etc., which would better inform you about the topics under discussion. For example, in the page on AR's gay cure, I reprinted the big ad they bought in the NY Times which the supposedly changed signed, and after the list of men, there's a list of women headed by "We have changed from lesbianism". And as I note in the text, one of the signers is my grandmother. She was also a "consultant" who counseled others on how to "change". MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If length is such an issue, shorter alternatives are: Claim that homosexuals became heterosexual through Aesthetic Realism or Claim that Aesthetic Realism make homosexuals heterosexual - Outerlimits (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality, and controversy
• Homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism, and controversy
• Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality, and controversy
• Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism, and controversy

I'm inclined to try and pick from these and call it a day. Or we can go back to Homosexuality and Aesthetic Realism (the original freakin title)

The above 4 are neutral and comprehensive. I think the role of AR is sufficiently implied or stated. This section is not just about the claims or the controversy or the philosophy. It's really all 3, starting with how AR views homosexuality as an outgrowth of contempt, then the series of testimonies and advocacy, then the controversy/backlash leading to VOTP and eventual (public) retraction. Although it's very important to those who look negatively at this period in AR's history that the "claim it cured gays" is emphasized, I don't think this is the overarching title. It's may be the key point--the thesis, so to speak--but it's not the title or general subject.

MBJ, The reason I asked about women is because homosexual and gay can have different gender connotations and they've also changed over time. I think your website does not meet WP:SPS requirements, so I would prefer any links to articles or images be posted on the sources subpages here, just so I know which ones are actually going to be usable in this article. Are any of the images you mention public domain or with a copyright status we could upload here? Would they meet RS? (Or a fair use exemption, is also an option, but that's getting ahead of ourselves). Ocaasi ^c 12:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to keep repeating suggestions that have been rejected. None of your most recent seem to address the fact that your reading of the section is not universally agreed to; I think you're quite wrong that AR's ex-gay claims aren't paramount; without them no one would have even heard about AR's "approach", much less care about it, and there would have been no "controversy". A neutral formulation would admit that, instead of trying to bury amid "approach" and "controversy". Better alternatives are: Claim that homosexuals became heterosexual through Aesthetic Realism or Claim that Aesthetic Realism make homosexuals heterosexual, the latter of which is 58 characters compared to the shortest of your four, which is 70 characters long. - Outerlimits (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OL, those suggestions had partial agreement between MBJ and CSag so it was a good place to try and build from. That said, I disagree with your characterization of my viewpoint. I acknowledge that [claims] "gays changed" is the thesis, the key point. But headings are more general than theses, and in my opinion the proper heading is one of the above four I listed. A heading should cover all of the topical areas not just the most prominent one. If we want to highlight a specific aspect, then i think we need to use subheaders. Ocaasi ^c 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you continue to miss my points. My repeated invitations for you to have a look at the material on my site (which includes a wealth of primary sources) are not a suggestion for you to cite those sources, but rather a way for you to learn more about the topics under discussion. Since it hasn't been clear, let me be more blunt: You're editing a topic you don't seem to know a whole lot about, and that's apparent when you ask basic questions like the one you recently did. My site and sources could answer a lot of your questions, as well as put the issues into perspective. And of course I know that the terms "homosexual" and "gay" can have different gender connotations.

I think OL's suggestions are still too awkward, and I still think the ones I suggested are clear and away the best ones.

CSaguaro, please don't censor other people's Talk. The policy you cited is for editing ARTICLES, not Talk pages. The policy doesn't say you can censor other people's Talk. MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I agree with you that your suggestions

1. Efforts to change gays to straight
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation
3. Claims that gays can be changed to straight
4. Claims that sexual orientation can be changed
5. Assertions that gays can be changed to straight
6. Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed

are much to be preferred over the others, because they accurately focus on the crux of the matter. I would avoid "cure", though only in an effort to be accommodating. I think I like Claims that gays can be changed to straight best- Outerlimits (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OL, my criticism of them is that they focus too much, not effectively arching over the content of the section. They're not wrong, I just find them less comprehensive. MBJ, you suggest other people would see things your way if they knew what you know. Perhaps they know. Perhaps they disagree. Perhaps they want to maintain neutrality to facilitate editing. Regardless, my approach is based on the sources that will bear on this article. I see the source subpages amply detailed. I think the titles I suggested work, but perhaps my top pick would be better as. Approach to homosexuality, assertion people changed to heterosexuality, and controversy. Ocaasi ^c 6:26 am, Today (UTC−4)

Ocaasi, as you note in your back-channel communications with LoreMariano, you've been unable to achieve consensus that your desired heading is to be preferred. You might want to consider that "comprehensive" and "short" are directly in conflict and consider compromising on the former in order to achieve the latter. Article sections should be comprehensive, article subheadings should be short. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if' back-channel' was suggesting an attempt to short-cut this discussion, but I was pretty clear that we should make the uncontroversial changes and check back here about homosexuality and racism. Comprehensive and short are in tension but I find that it is possible to achieve both, just not with consensus. My personal preference is none of the suggestions that have been discussed. I would do:

==Homosexuality==
===Philosophic approach===
===Claims gays changed sexual orientation===
===Controversy===
...and I'm pretty sure one way or another that offends everyone. Anyway, let's make the uncontroversial changes to the headers (everything except homosexuality/racism) and then throw around the titles if need be. Ocaasi ^c 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Back-channel" is simply an allusion to the fact that you are coordinating your editing with LoreMariano on (at least) your respective talk pages, rather than on the talk page of the article involved, so that the complete record of conversations won't be found here, where one following the editing of the article would normally expect it to be. Simply a statement of fact, rather than an implication. Of course, our purpose is to find an acceptable consensus, not a set of proposed titles that pleases you but fails to obtain consensus. Simply restating what pleases you isn't really a step forward. As previously stated, "Homosexuality" won't do, as the section is about AR's views on homosexuality, not homosexuality per se; the "Claims" section fails to attribute the claim, suggesting that someone unaffiliated with AR had made the claim that AR eliminates gayness, rather than AR itself making that claim and "Controversy" as a separate heading seems both superfluous and misleading: it's not as though the "philosophic approach" (that is, the AR dogma that all homosexuality arises from contempt) were uncontroversial, or that the ex-gay claims were uncontroversial. In short, it seems your headings, while short, are vague and uninformative and would benefit from being clear statements rather than vague descriptions. - Outerlimits (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (Arbitrary break #4)

In keeping with our purpose stated above by Outerlimits "to find an acceptable consensus," I'm okay with this title suggested by Michaelbluejay: Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed. I would prefer Assertion that sexual orientation changed since the Aesthetic Realism Foundation no longer gives consultations on this subject, but I can live with it as stated by Michaelbluejay and (I think) approved by Outerlimits ("much...preferred over the others, because [it] accurately focus[es] on the crux of the matter." LoreMariano (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working towards consensus, Lore. In the meantime, can we do something about the other section headings, that are very simple changes. Any objections to updating the non-homosexuality titles as discussed above? Ocaasi ^c 20:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not down with changing "can be changed" to simply "changed", for a couple of reasons. First, the fact that AR no longer counsels gays about changing is beside the point. The point is that AR believes that sexual orientation is *changeable*. That's what's meant by "can be changed". In any event, AR believes that homosexuality is caused by contempt, and that studying AR can help one purge their contempt, so any gay person who has sufficiently mastered Aesthetic Realism will cease to be gay without any gay-specific instruction, according to the AR doctrine. In fact, I believe one of the "changed" described his experience exactly that way (probably Sheldon Kranz; I don't have my copy of The H Persuasion handy). But again, the point is that AR believes that homosexuality is amenable to change, which is what the heading is trying to communicate. As far as the other headings, Ocaasi, can you present again exactly what you're suggesting? I think using the Scientology article as an example would be a good idea, tweaking it as necessary. MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So, Assertion that sexual orientation changed? I find it a big ambiguous for an uninformed reader, but if that's the closest we can agree on we should use it. Ocaasi ^c 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Assertion that sexual orientation changed is what Sheldon Kranz and others asserted. I think it describes accurately the content of the section. I think "can be changed" sounds a little like a promotion or brochure advertising that "change is possible." LoreMariano (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Mainstream opinion is that sexual orientation is not amenable to change. AR believes otherwise. That's why their position is controversial. "Can be changed" describes this properly. "Changed", by itself, does not. MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed those two up. This is part of the problem, though, with having a pointed, descriptive heading; it doesn't leave room for the breadth of the subject or nuance over time. The main topic here is Homosexuality--the subtopics are "Homosexuality is caused by contempt"--"Study of AR changed sexual orientation"--Controversy--Retreat from public claims. Ocaasi ^c 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think they are ideal I would be for either of the titles Assertion that homosexuality changed or Assertion that homosexuality can be changed. CSaguaro (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this looks very close to consensus. Assertion(s) that homosexuality/sexual orientation [can be] changed. If that's all we're discussing then this should be fairly easy to wrap up. Could OL and Trouver make a comment? Ocaasi ^c 03:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the most accurate title of those suggested above is: Assertion that homosexuality changed Second choice: Assertion that sexual orientation changed. Trouver (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, Yes, let's go forward with the simple changes--

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry and Aesthetic Realism

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 Aesthetic Realism and the The arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 [TBD]

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and Ending racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

Thinking about the difference between Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed and Assertion that sexual orientation changed, I think the main difference is that the first implies it's possible ("can be" changed) but it leaves a question in the reader's mind as to whether it ever did. The second seems to imply that it is possible because it has occurred, "sexual orientation changed" and therefore it is possible that "it can change." At any rate, the second title is stating that it is an assertion, it's not stated as a fact, so I think it's NPOV and it does reflect the content of the section. LoreMariano (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm adding the not controversial changes. Everything but homosexuality.
2. Assertion...changed implicitly covers MBJ's apt distinction that mainstream experts do not think homosexuality can be changed, because we have contextualized this as an assertion, and therefore attributed the POV per WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not wrong, but simply not necessary to add 'can be changed' since 'assertion' implies that since it was stated, the statement included its possibility. If I 'assert I can fly' it means I also 'assert i am capable of flying'. They are synonymous in that regard. We should also add a note in the section giving the mainstream opinion on sexual conversion therapy per WP:FRINGE, as well as noting the historical response from mainstream experts and reviewers to AR's assertions was dismissal and skepticism. Ocaasi ^c 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you suggest a note be added to the homosexuality section. The section on homosexuality and the following section “Victim of the press” use various sources to present the position of Aesthetic Realism as well as the response from media, psychiatric establishment and gay advocacy groups. I don't think it is needed. CSaguaro (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Having participated in editing this article in the past I have been following the current discussion with interest. We took great care with sources during the many months of editing to be sure that all positions were adequately represented and they are already present in both the homosexuality and victim of the press sections. It should be noted that the historical response to the change from homosexuality was mixed with not only skepticism and dismissal but also with positive response as well such as the John Lewis article in the New York Daily News. In my opinion that ground is well covered from all sides and needs no further footnoting. It should also be noted that Aesthetic Realism's constant position has been that it is not conversion therapy and shouldn't be confused as such. It is philosophic education about how a person sees the whole of reality and it posits that as a person's way of seeing the world changes many things in their life will change simply as a natural consequence of that, sexual orientation being one of them. It doesn't set out to change a person's sexuality but rather to have a person "like the world on an honest, aesthetic basis." The challenge in editing this article is to avoid pigeonholing Aesthetic Realism into categories that aren't really accurately descriptive of it.Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

CS, I think the current version does do a decent job of presenting the response of media/psychiatric/gay groups. I meant the commentary more generally, not as a specific proposal.

Cyberpathfinder, what AR presents and how others view it are two different things. The establishment viewed AR's approach as another form of conversion therapy. AR never described it that way. Those are two separate things. We describe them both per NPOV, attributing the respective opinions, not endorsing either. Ocaasi ^c 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think to say that the establishment viewed AR as conversion therapy is too broad a statement. The historical record shows that the establishment's reaction was quite varied with AR's position viewed as everything from a breakthrough to an intriguing theory to overly simplistic. The main and most intense drive to label Aesthetic Realism as "conversion therapy" (and thereby discredit it) came from the "gay mainstream" and various gay reporters such as Kae Longscope who wrote for the Boston Globe. I think the article as it stands does a respectable job of dealing with the nuances of the establishment's multi-layered response to Aesthetic Realism in relation to homosexuality. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as revisionist history. Outside of one article in the NY Daily News (by a reporter who apparently took the Aesthetic Realists' at their word that the "change" program really worked), what other positive coverage is there? And where in the mainstream media did they say that Aesthetic Realism was *not* conversion therapy? For that matter, how exactly would AR's program *not* qualify as conversion therapy? There are copious references on the sources page about AR's consultations specifically referred to as therapy. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the distinction is between time periods and points of view. At the time, and in their view, AR was performing neither conversion nor therapy, it was just consultations to correct philosophical outlooks in a fundamental way. In the 70's, mainstream psychologists considered that therapy and likely conversion therapy, since it was widely accepted practice to fix the 'mental disorder' that was homosexuality. But the term conversion therapy came into popular usage during the 80's with the rise of the Christian Evangelical movement and its response to the advances in gay rights into the 90's. Not for nothing, change and conversion are synonyms, and "therapy" is a very broad word which can encompass almost any deliberate interpersonal attempt at life-improvement. I believe the sources we have viewed AR's campaign as one of conversion therapy, or at least in that context.

The question of how we deal with terminology in this article is pretty straightforward. 1) We describe the uncontested facts as neutrally as possible. 2) We give AR's view of what they were doing 'at the time' (60's-80's). 3) We give the mainstream view of what they were doing 'at the time'. 4) Then we do that again for the 90's-00's, presenting whatever new terminology either side used.

MBJ, could you point to specific sources that are on the subpage--RS which we can use--that are not incorporated into that section?

Cyber, the point of view you're suggesting belongs in a separate paragraph, the one which deals with AR's characterization of what was going on. We don't write from an insider's point of view, no matter what it is or if it's 'correct'. We write from no-one's opinion and describe the various sides. That's what NPOV is in practice. Of course, it's better if this can be integrated into a coherent narrative, but if it can't, we just go: uncontested facts, side A, side B, repeat.

WP:FRINGE has some insight here, as does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Fringe suggests that non-mainstream points of view receive attention in proportion to the coverage they got in independent reliable sources, unless the non-mainstream point of view is being described from the insider's POV specifically. It's fair to say that in the panoply of psychological experienced, conversion therapy is Fringe to begin with, and AR's philosophical consultation approach is even more Fringe. Fringe doesn't mean wrong it just means not mainstream. Also, that doesn't mean we describe AR's actions as something they were not--we can still choose terms carefully and detail the contexts in which they were used--but it does mean we only present AR's view of their own conduct when we are specifically describing it. Otherwise, independent sources should be the dominant ones, or at least they should have a separate section.

Cyber, I'm not sure that it was only 'gay advocacy' groups who characterized AR's actions in they way you've suggested. You'll have to do a more thorough comparison of the sources, and keep any original opinion out of the weighing of those groups. Same to you MBJ, though having seen the sources subpage I think there is something to your suggestion--not the "conversion therapy" part, since that is mainly semantic, but the fact that the mainstream did view it as therapy, with the intent of "changing" (= converting) sexual orientation, and did not recognize AR's approach as meaningfully different in that regard. Ocaasi ^c 06:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, thank you for your continued work on this article. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking me regarding sources. This section covers AR being referred to as "therapy", "conversion therapy", and "counseling", but I'm sure you saw that so I'm not sure what you're after. I did just clean up the Sources page a bit so it's better organized and easier to find stuff. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant, are there any sources on the sub-page which are not currently used in the article, that support your proposed changes. Ocaasi ^c 09:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What proposed changes are you talking about? That the section heading for the homosexuality section should be something like "Assertion that sexual orientation can be changed"? MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant mainstream/academic/gay sources which address homosexuality that are on the sub-page but not in the section. It wasn't really related to the title. Ocaasi ^c 01:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't checked, but why are you asking about this now when we're working only on the heading now? When it's time to work on the section, I'll be offering a new rewrite of the H section from scratch. MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, do you still want to work on this article? MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)