Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3

Page for new drafts

History

Homosexuality/VOTP-Trouver

Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality

In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919-1980) was the first man to report that he changed from homosexuality through the principles of Aesthetic Realism. He said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation (he was no longer impelled toward men) to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life. Kranz was married for 25 years (until his death) to Obie award-winning actress Anne Fielding. This change occurred even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy.

Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as neither a “sin” to be repented nor an “illness” to be cured, but as a philosophic matter.A fundamental principle of Aesthetic Realism is that every person is in a fight between contempt for the world and respect for it.That fight is present in homosexuality. Aesthetic Realism states that, in the field of love and sex, a homosexual man prefers the sameness of another man while undervaluing the difference of the world that a woman represents. This undervaluing of difference is a form of contempt for the world; therefore, as a man learns how to like the world honestly, his attitude toward difference changes and this affects every area of his life, including sexual preference.

In 1971 three men were interviewed on New York City’s WNDT Channel 13 Free Time show about their change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. A transcript of this interview was reprinted in the book The H Persuasion, which was published that year. The book also contained writing by Siegel detailing his ideas about the cause of homosexuality, transcripts of Aesthetic Realism lessons, and narratives by men describing both why they changed and how. Also in 1971, four men who said they changed from homosexuality were interviewed on the David Susskind Show, which had a national syndication. The airing of these two televised interviews resulted in many requests from people who wanted to study Aesthetic Realism, including, but not limited to, men wanting to change from homosexuality. In response, Siegel designated four consultation trios: The Three Persons and First Person Plural, trios that taught women wanting to understand themselves and love; Consultation With Three, whose purpose was the understanding and changing of homosexuality; and The Kindest Art, teaching artists the relation of art to life. In 1983, five other men who said they had changed from homosexuality were interviewed on the David Susskind Show. The transcript of this interview was published in the 1986 book The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality.Through the 1970s and 1980s additional men said they changed from homosexuality through the philosophy. Many married and some started families.

“Victim of the Press”

With the exception of a brief 1971 review calling The H Persuasion “less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers,” the New York Times never reported that men said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Students of the philosophy who had changed from homosexuality, and those whose lives had changed in other dramatic ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people. They mounted an aggressive campaign of telephone calls, letters and vigils in front of various media offices and at the private homes of editors. Many wore lapel buttons that said: “Victim of the Press.”

Later issues with the press

In 1978, an ad was placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” It was signed by 50 men and women. The story that men could change from homosexuality, however, was controversial. In 1982 The Boston Globe, reported that the “assertion” of change through Aesthetic Realism was “a claim staggering to psychiatrists and psychologists.” About 250 people protested on the Boston Common demanding that the paper "print the truth about Aesthetic Realism." The Globe’s ombudsman later wrote in his column that the Globe’s original story was biased against Aesthetic Realism.

Beginning in the 1980’s, gay activists increasingly attacked Aesthetic Realism for saying that homosexuality arose from an incomplete way of seeing the world and could change. Supporters of the philosophy responded that Aesthetic Realism describes contempt as a hurtful interference in every person’s life—homosexual and heterosexual, man and woman, child and senior. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation also stated that it supported full, completely equal civil rights for homosexuals, including the right of a man or woman to live their life in the way they chose. In 1990, not wanting to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation decided to discontinue its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”

Students continued efforts to have the press recognize Aesthetic Realism, which they advocated as "The Only Answer to the Mideast Crisis" in a 1990 advertisement on the op-ed page of the New York Times. To oppose prejudice they recommend that persons of nations who are in conflict “write a soliloquy of 500 words” describing the feelings of a person in the opposing land.

Homosexuality/VOTP-Michaelbluejay

Efforts to change gays to straight

Aesthetic Realism view of homosexuality

Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as a mental issue resulting from one's contempt of the world, especially women, and that by studying Aesthetic Realism a gay person could purge his contempt and "get better". In an Aesthetic Realism book on the topic, in a chapter titled, "Homosexuality: A Form of Selfishness", Aesthetic Realism founder Eli Siegel describes the cause of homosexuality thusly:

All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it sufficiently.

This changes into a contempt for women....

Homosexuality, like biting one's nails, depression, excessive gambling, arises out of a disproportionate way of seeing the world.

There are other ways a person has of not liking himself, but homosexuality is one.

In addition to believing that homosexuality is caused by contempt, Aesthetic Realists view contempt as "the greatest sin that a person can have", and believe that "contempt causes insanity; in fact...it causes all mental trouble."

Aesthetic Realists believe that gays can become straight by studying Aesthetic Realism and learning to appreciate the world honestly. Towards that end they published two books, a short film,, and advertisements in major newspapers to promote their program of change. In an ad purchased in the New York Times about Aesthetic realism in general, they said, "We say what history will say: the American press has blood on its hands, has caused misery and death, because for years it has withheld the news that men and women have changed from homosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism." The group also conducted therapy sessions at their headquarters to try to help gays become straight.

Aesthetic Realists say that their views about homosexuality are being misrepresented by their critics. The executive director of the foundation said, "Aesthetic Realism most certainly does not consider homosexuality a mental illness; in fact, Eli Siegel always objected to homosexuality's being seen that way. Similarly, Aesthetic Realism never saw homosexuality as something to 'cure,' and—whether through Mr. Siegel or any Aesthetic Realism consultant, whether in writing or in speech—Aesthetic Realism never presented itself as having a 'cure.'...Aesthetic Realism is for full, equal civil rights for everyone."

History

Beginning in 1965 Aesthetic Realists started trying to get the media to publicize the professed ability of Aesthetic Realism to change gays to straight. This first happened when Aesthetic Realist Sheldon Kranz gave an interview to Jonathan Black on WNDT in February 1971. This was soon followed by Kranz and three other Aesthetic Realists appearing on the David Susskind television program in April saying they had changed. Following the interest generated by the media appearances, that same year the Aesthetic Realists published a book describing their program of change (The H Persuasion: How Persons Have Permanently Changed from Homosexuality through the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel), and started offering counseling to gays hoping to become straight. The New York Times panned the book in a short review, writing "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." Aesthetic Realists responded with an angry letter to the editor, saying "You owe it to suffering families, and to men who want to change from homosexuality, to print an article by the four contributors...allowing them to present the basis of their change through their study with Siegel."

In 1978 and 1979, Aesthetic Realists bought large advertisements in major newspapers promoting their program of change, writing, "The means by which we changed is both scientific and beautiful. What we have learned, that which has changed our lives centrally, is in [the] definition of Aesthetic Realism.... We believe that all people should know the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel." Around this time Aesthetic Realists protested the "press boycott" of its gay change program by calling the New York Times more than 65 times a day and holding vigils in front of the homes of Times publisher C. L. Punch Sulzberger and other top Times officials. "It's really quite funny, in a sad sort of way, a friend at the Times tells us. They come in a couple of times a week - three sorry-looking guys flanked by two women. The guys wear signs around their necks saying something like 'I used to be a homosexual but Eli Segal (founder of the AR movement) saved me.' At least they had an identity when they were gay; now they look as if they've been put through the laundry." Aesthetic Realists also wore buttons that said "Victim of the Press" to protest the media's lack of coverage. National Lampoon seemingly ridiculed this in a cartoon about "positive indicators" of "a bona fide nut" ("3. Lots of Buttons"), depicting a man wearing a Victim of the Press button. Shortly after the New York Post printed that an Aesthetic Realism student and public school teacher wore her Victim of the Press button to class, the Aesthetic Realists stopped wearing them.

In 1982 a short film called "Yes We Have Changed" was produced by Aesthetic Realism teacher Ken Kimmelman, who would later produce Aesthetic Realism-themed films opposing homelessness and racial prejudice. Before its release, one of the subjects of the film admitted to still having gay sex, despite having married another Aesthetic Realist, and he was edited out of the film. The David Susskind show again interviewed Aesthetic Realists about the change in 1983. In 1986 the Aesthetic Realists published their second book on the topic, The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality.

In 1990 Aesthetic Realists purchased a bold double-page ad in the New York Times to promote their philosophy in general, including their gay change program. An excerpt from the ad says, "We say what history will say: the American press has blood on its hands, has caused misery and death, because for years it has withheld the news that men and women have changed from homosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism."

Later that year the Aesthetic Realism Foundation stopped offering its program of change, saying "[T]here is now intense anger in America on the subject of homosexuality and how it is seen....[S]ince the Aesthetic Realism Foundation has not wanted to be involved in that atmosphere of anger, in 1990 the Foundation discontinued its public presentation of the fact that through Aesthetic Realism people have changed from homosexuality...."

Beginning in 2004 former member of Aesthetic Realism Michael Bluejay began publishing criticism of the group on a website, especially regarding its gay change program, and inviting other former members to share their experiences.

In 2008 the group was referred to as "anti-gay" in articles in the gay press.

In 2010, an Aesthetic Realism supporter referred to a critic of the group as "flamboyantly homosexual".

Controversy

"Cure" for homosexuality. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation points out that it never used the word "cure" to describe its program of change and never saw homosexuality as something to cure. However, critics often derisively refer to the Aesthetic Realism program as a "cure" (often in quotation marks), including the New York Times, New York Magazine,, and others.

Effectiveness of the change. Aesthetic Realists frequently describe the change from homosexuality as "permanent", though many of those who underwent the program reverted to gay life, or said they realized that they had never really changed in the first place. Critics have also been skeptical of the change, such as gay activist Allen Roskoff. "It was basically, obviously stereotypical gay men with women and the women were claiming them and the men were trying to behave as straight people." The Aesthetic Realism foundation maintains that many men did change permanently, though has not provided any figures to demonstrate a success rate. Former member and current critic Michael Bluejay offered to fund experiments to evaluate whether gays had really changed, but the foundation has not responded.

The American Psychological Association says that therapy cannot change sexual orientation, and that "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.... Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention."

How Aesthetic Realism sees homosexuality. Aesthetic Realists maintain that they never saw homosexuality as something to cure or as a mental illness, and that they are for "full civil rights for everyone". Critics counter that the Aesthetic Realists harbor an anti-gay prejudice, quoting the Aesthetic Realists' own writings, such as "Eli Siegel [Aesthetic Realism's founder] does not approve of homosexuality,", "Eli Siegel stated the main reason homosexuality is not ethical," and "Homosexuality: A Form of Selfishness". They point out that Aesthetic Realists believe that "all homosexuality arises from contempt of the world", and that "According to Aesthetic Realism, the greatest sin that a person can have is the desire for contempt," and "One of the greatest humanitarian and intellectual achievements of all time was the discovery by Eli Siegel, the founder of Aesthetic Realism, that contempt causes insanity; in fact, that it causes all mental trouble." Ellen Reiss, the current Class Chairman of the foundation, speaking in an interview about gay change said, "We are not psychiatrists; psychiatry has essentially failed. People who go to psychiatrists don’t change. They don’t get better."

Aesthetic Realists have proffered skepticism that gays can be truly happy. In their original book on the subject, they wrote, "So, when we are told--and it is more often belligerently told than not--that someone likes being gay and wouldn't change for anything, we listen, but with an attitude of benevolent semi-conviction. This is not meant to be patronizing. It's just that we are helplessly unconvinced." In a televised interview, when the interviewer asks, "Can you conceive of any homosexual as having a good, healthy, noncontemptuous relation with a homosexual?", AR student Sheldon Kranz answers, "I would say no."

Negative effects on those who sought the change. The American Psychological Association says, "The American Psychological Association is concerned about so-called 'conversion therapies' and their potential harm to patients." In his book Wresting with God and Men, Rabbi Steven Greenberg wrote, "In the early eighties a young man at Yeshiva University, troubled by his homosexual desires, came out to a religious studies teacher and was sent to Aesthetic Realism, the once popular philosophic cult of Eli Siegel, who had a theory for healing homosexuals. The therapy enforced his self-blame and made his situation worse. Six months later the young man attempted suicide and was sent home by the university, never to return." One person who underwent the Aesthetic Realism program now recalls, "Right from the start, I found myself feeling very depressed after my consultations....My consultants encouraged me to talk more with my wife about my homosexual feelings and my gratitude to ES and AR. Even though my efforts were halfhearted at best, these discussions introduced a level of stress in my marriage that had not previously existed. My wife no more wanted to hear about my homosexuality than I wanted to tell her about it, and even my puny attempts at idolizing Eli Siegel made her see me as weak, which is precisely how it made me feel....I consider my 'study' of Aesthetic Realism to be one of the factors that led to the eventual breakup of my marriage, to my eternal sorrow."

Why the Foundation stopped offering change counseling. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation says it stopped offering its gay-change program because of the "atmosphere of anger" surrounding the issue, and because the issue is "by no means central to Aesthetic Realism". The Boston Globe disagreed that the gay-change program wasn't central to the group, saying in 1982, "Though Aesthetic Realism gives seminars and "dramatic presentations" on a variety of topics - acting, anthropology, art, business, drugs, ethics, family, insanity, marriage, music, photography, religion - the main emphasis appears to be changing homosexuals into heterosexuals." Bluejay contends that changing gays was exceptionally important to Aesthetic Realists, otherwise they wouldn't have bought large ads in major newspapers to promote their gay-change efforts, Critics also allege the foundation stopped its program in part because so many high-profile success stories left the group and reverted to a gay lifestyle, casting doubt on whether the change was really effective anyway.

Timeline

Unsourced entries from Timeline of Aesthetic Realism which need references to be used in the actual article:

• 1957 Sheldon Kranz marries Anne Fielding. He later publicly described (1971) how "a person who is homosexual...can honestly and permanently change the way he sees women" through the study of Aesthetic Realism (see p. 23, The H Persuasion).
• 1961 Ted van Griethuysen has his first "Aesthetic Realism lesson on the subject of homosexuality". He writes later that he never again had a homosexual experience.
• 1962 Ted van Griethuysen and Rebecca Thompson have an Aesthetic Realism lesson together. They are married three months later.
• 1965 Tom Shields begins his study of Aesthetic Realism and claims to have changed from homosexuality as a result. Aesthetic Realism students begin soliciting the media for coverage about their supposed gay cure.
• 1968 Roy Harris begins his study of Aesthetic Realism and has his first Aesthetic Realism lesson on homosexuality.
• 1969-70 Ibsen's Hedda Gabler based on a new critical interpretation by Eli Siegel premieres at Terrain Gallery and continues at the Actors Playhouse.
• 1970 Advertisement placed in New York Times by students of Aesthetic Realism on their opinion of the philosophy and its founder
• 1970 Flutist Barbara Allen begins to study Aesthetic Realism.
• 1971 Jonathan Black, of Free Time, on WNDT, Channel 13, broadcasts an interview Sheldon Kranz, Roy Harris, and Ted van Griethuysenwith describe changing to heterosexuality from homosexuality. Resulting public interest results in the establishment of Consultation With Three in which Harris, Kranz, and van Griethuysen teach men who wish to understand their homosexuality. Simultaneously Aesthetic Realism Consultations for women begin with The Three Persons, Margot Carpenter, Berthe Bania, and Devorah Tarrow, teaching women who wish to understand themselves and how they see men and the world.
• 1971 Kranz, Harris, van Griethuysen, and Tom Shields appear for two hours on the David Susskind Show, discussing their change from homosexuality, together with four representatives of the Gay Liberation Front--an interview that is eventually broadcast in forty states reaching 32 million people. Aesthetic Realism faces "an almost overwhelming demand" for consultations.
• 1971 The H Persuasion: How Persons Have Permanently Changed from Homosexuality through the Study of Aesthetic Realism with Eli Siegel is published, containing essays in which Sheldon Kranz, Ted van Griethuysen, Roy Harris, and Tom Shields give "the principal reason for the change from H" and present "some of the details of that change" (pp. xi, vii). The And the book contains Siegel's short explanation, "Aesthetic Realism; or, Is a Person an Aesthetic Situation?" The book includes first-person case studies.
• 1971 Aesthetic Realism Seminars begin with "The Three Persons" addressing women's issues, particularly how a woman "can welcome love and yet like herself and the universe."
• 1973 The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known begins. The first issue is titled "We Have to Stir the Conscience of the Times" and describes Aesthetic Realism consultations in diverse areas, including art, marriage, youth issues.
• 1975 Men who describe how they have "changed from homosexuality through the study of Aesthetic Realism" are interviewed by Tom Snyder on his network television show
• 1976 "An Outline of Aesthetic Realism" by Eli Siegel published as an advertisement in the New York Times by the Aesthetic Realism Advertising Committee
• 1977 2nd Printing of The H Persuasion
• 1979 Advertisements are placed in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, by men and women who state, "We, the undersigned, have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel....We represent 140 men and women....The means by which we changed is both scientific and beautiful" (New York Times Magazine, June 3, 1979).
• 1986 The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change From Homosexuality, ed. by Ellen Reiss is published. Includes autobiographical essays by six men, which are first-person case studies documenting what they learned.
• 1990 Double page advertisement placed in the New York Times, "A Letter to the American People," on the education of Aesthetic Realism from impersonal subjects such as art and literature to more personal ones--including liking oneself and liking the world on an honest basis.
• 1990 Aesthetic Realism Foundation "discontinued its public presentation of the fact that through Aesthetic Realism people have changed from homosexuality, and consultations to change from homosexuality are not being given." The reason, stated the Foundation, is: "We do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind. Aesthetic Realism is for full, equal civil rights for everyone."
• 1990s Students of Aesthetic Realism discontinue wearing Victim of the Press buttons after newspapers across the country begin to print letters and articles about Aesthetic Realism, many written by them, with increasingly frequency.
• 1992 The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, issue no. 1000. By now The Right Of is the largest extant collection of publications by Eli Siegel--lectures, poems, essays--and of editorial essays by Ellen Reiss on diverse subjects of immediate public interest.

Homosexuality & VOTP references

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and racism In one of his earliest essays, “The Equality of Man” (1923), Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics, the theory that intelligence is inherited and some people belong to superior breeds or races, while others are born inferior. He argued that thus far in the history of the world, people have not had equal conditions of life, to bring out their potential abilities, and he asserted that if all men and women had “an equal chance to use all the powers they had at birth, they would be equal.” According to Aesthetic Realism, racism and prejudice of all kinds begins with the human inclination towards contempt, “the addition to self through the lessening of something else.” Students of the philosophy assert that the racist attitude is not inevitable, but can change if one learns to recognize and criticize contempt. In public forums, individuals of diverse nationalities and cultural backgrounds have described how, through study of Aesthetic Realism, their racism and prejudice changed, not into “tolerance” but into a respectful desire to know and to see that the feelings of another are “as real, and as deep, as one’s own.” The UN commissioned filmmaker Ken Kimmelman, a consultant on the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, to make two anti-prejudice films: Asimbonanga, and Brushstrokes. Kimmelman credits Aesthetic Realism as his inspiration for these films, as well as his 1995 Emmy-award winning anti-prejudice public service film, The Heart Knows Better, based on a statement by Siegel. Alice Bernstein describes Aesthetic Realism as "the education that can end racism" in her book, The People of Clarendon County (Chicago: Third World Press, 2007), which includes a play by that title written in 1955 by Ossie Davis (1917-2005) noted actor, author, director, and activist. Bernstein, who writes about Aesthetic Realism in her serialized column in the South Carolina Black News, re-discovered the play in 2004, and with Davis's approval, combined it with historical documents, photographs and essays about Aesthetic Realism. “Alice Bernstein," Mr. Davis said, "has dedicated her life to ending racism in this country.” Mrs. Bernstein joined the Davis family at the 2007 performance of the play, to launch the Ossie Davis Endowment Scholarship. Subsequent productions combining the play with a presentation of Aesthetic Realism as the answer to racism have taken place in New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, and at the Congressional Auditorium of the US Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC, with introductory remarks given by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn. (edited Trouver (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First, let me say that this looks much better than the previous versions. Thanks to the editor(s) who drafted it. However I am still concerned that many of the sources are either very obscure or are AR-related. For example, one appears to be a newsletter for a small chapter of the NAACP. Another, the Amsterdam News, seems to have been misinterpreted as a European publication. Combined they seem to give too much weight to the racism issue. I suggest that we should pay more attention to attributing opinions to their holders, particularly when they are AR students.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Will. (1) I'm aware the Amsterdam News is a NY paper, and used it to cite the fact that The Heart Knows Better was an Emmy award-winning film. "International acclaim" means it also won awards at many international film festivals. Would it be sufficient to name these awards in a footnote, or are you saying this should be specified in the text, or are you asking for citations mentioning the film in international papers? (2) The NAACP writer is not associated with Aesthetic Realism. I will review this section in consideration of your comment, making sure opinions are attributed. Trouver (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) If it won awards at international film festivals then it would be more direct to say that rather than the more roundabout "international acclaim". I didn't mean that the NAACP writer was an AR student - those are two separate concerns: obscure publications and AR sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The "Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality" section needs a lot of work. I'll post my proposed version in a minute. In the current version many facts are missing and many good sources are omitted. There's also a mixing of history with general explanation. So in my version I segregated the history from the controversy, and I tagged the various kinds of controversy. I made sure to quote the Aesthetic Realists' position on the controversies, with cites. However, the Homosexuality issue really shouldn't be under a "History" heading at all (and neither should most of the other topics in the "History" section). They are discrete subjects which can and should probably be discussed independently from history. MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I'm encouraged to hear that there are only a couple of areas of concern so far. The "VOP" section is a big improvement. Through thesis and antithesis we can achieve a productive synthesis. Let's see if we can combine the sourced facts in both versions, and try to eliminate as much non-neutrality as we can, OK?   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) What exactly are you suggesting? Trouver's Homosexuality and VotP sections don't even approach WP standards, and everything else is pretty questionable too. However, in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to accept all of Trouver's other sections (besides the two just mentioned), if we use my combined version of the gay issues/VotP as a starting point for that topic. My goal is just to make sure the more controversial aspects of Aesthetic Realism are represented accurately, since we certainly can't trust the Aesthetic Realists to do it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) The VotP section is mostly about the Change issue, but the paragraph that's actually about VotP seems pretty good to me. What's missing?   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I've split the section so it's easier to discuss.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Will, I'm floored that you think Trouver's VoTP section is "pretty good". It's awkward, full of claims, and perhaps most importantly, not straightforward. Compare Trouver's version with mine. Trouver's version. Only the last two sentences are straightfoward: With the exception of a brief 1971 review calling The H Persuasion “less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers,” the New York Times never reported that men said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Students of the philosophy who had changed from homosexuality, and those whose lives had changed in other dramatic ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people. They mounted an aggressive campaign of telephone calls, letters and vigils in front of various media offices and at the private homes of editors. Many wore lapel buttons that said: “Victim of the Press.” My version, minus the inline quote: Around this time Aesthetic Realists protested the "press boycott" of its gay change program by calling the New York Times more than 65 times a day and holding vigils in front of the homes of Times publisher C. L. Punch Sulzberger and other top Times officials. ... Aesthetic Realists also wore buttons that said "Victim of the Press" to protest the media's lack of coverage. National Lampoon ridiculed this in a cartoon about "positive indicators" of "a bona fide nut", and depicted a man wearing a Victim of the Press button. Shortly after the New York Post printed that an Aesthetic Realism student and public school teacher wore her Victim of the Press button to class, the Aesthetic Realists stopped wearing them. Which one is less POV, more complete, and more straightforward? Well, I meant that it was a big improvement over the existing material. Let's combine those. I read somewhere that there was a demonstration in Boston that perhaps should be included too. As a procedural matter, should we perhaps start by reviewing the less-controversial material? There's some early history before the homosexuality change issue. "Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel", "Aesthetic Realism and the arts", and "Aesthetic Realism Foundation". Does anybody have any improvements or comments to that material?   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Those sections are actually surprisingly good. I'll go a step further and say that the ARF section is okay too, except for two bits. First, I'm not sure "curriculum" is an accurate word for a very small, unaccredited institution, but I'll defer to your judgement. Next, I'm not sure "professional" is accurate (and non-POV) in the phrase "professional classes". Who gets employment or starts a practice as an Aesthetic Realism expert after studying at the foundation? MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I took the liberty of doing some copy-editing and other small adjustments. I dropped "curriculum" since it's redundant with "classes". If we have info on who founded the ARF that'd help. "New York" magazine, which we cite here, said in 1978 that there were fewer than 200 students of AR. We should try to work that in somewhere, along with any other size estimates we find. What is the value or relevance of the long quote by Reiss in the ARF section? It doesn't seem to concern ARF or even AR, and appears to concern Siegel alone.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC) BTW - Wikipedia has a manual of style that is unusual. One thing that Americans find odd is that we partly follow the UK style of placing punctuation outside of quotations marks, unless they are part of the original. The only time we place a full stop inside a quotation is if we're quoting a whole sentence. And then footnotes follow punctuation with no space. Straight quotation marks are preferred to curly ones.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (1) ARF was founded by Siegel's students (notably, not by Siegel himself) and I think it's safe to say as such, though I'm not sure we'd be able to find a good source. ARF is silent about this on their website. (2) I agree that Reiss' quote is misplaced. (3) I have a fairly complete list of current members, totaling about 106. (They're all considered "students", even the consultants/faculty, because the AR idea is that even a lifetime of study is insufficient to understand the fullness of Siegel's genius.) I list the 106 figure on my site, which is a potential source, and I know it's not the best source, but it's the *only* source. The Aesthetic Realists won't offer a number. They're embarrassed that their numbers are not only small but also declining. Anyway, the 106 figure is available, but in this case I'll understand if you decide that no source is better than a self-published source. MichaelBluejay (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC) It'd be good to say who formed ARF if we know. There's not much difference between "106" and "fewer than 200" - same order of magnitude. We would need a proper source for size estimates, but thanks for the offer. Also, I added to the draft that Jane St. was Siegel's apartment, and that it is in Greenwich Village- those were from memory but I recall reading that- am I correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Although Eli Siegel lived at 67 Jane Street, the space in which he taught was not where he lived; it was a separate rented space, so it is not correct. Will address other subjects tomorrow. Trouver (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC) In the same building?   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Mr. Siegel lived at 5B, 67 Jane Street, and taught at 3C. New York architecture can be surprising, and technically, although connected by a lobby, I believe they were two distinct buildings. Trouver (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC) In keeping with some of the above suggestions, I am editing the draft I posted a few days ago. Should I make the changes above, or should we start a new page? Trouver (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC) So "next door" would be fairly accurate? What kind of changes are you suggesting? The discussion here has concerned relatively minor changes (except of the deletion of that long quotation). If you're making minor changes then just make then to the existing text. If you're making major changes maybe you should discuss them here first.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I will delete long quote and make minor changes above. I don't like dividing the press part and suggest (1) removing the title you added, and (2) moving the 2 sentences about the 1990 mideast ad to the press section--it actually provides a more graceful segue into the final section. I'll try it and see what everybody thinks (can always undo). As to 67 Jane Street I suggest just cutting "his apartment" but if you must have it the following are all correct: 1) Mr. Siegel taught at 67 Jane Street, where he also resided; 2) taught in his library at 67 Jane Street where he also resided; 3) taught in his library, next door to his apartment at 67 Jane Street.(Actually "near" would be more exact, but since they were both at the same address I suppose this is close enough.) Glad to see we are all making progress. Trouver (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Are there any other comments about "Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel", "Aesthetic Realism and the arts", and "Aesthetic Realism Foundation"? If not I propose we add them to the article and begin discussing the homosexuality and VotP sections.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Seeing no further comment, I'll post that material. It isn't set in stone, but let's consider the first three parts of the draft 'approved' and move on to discuss the nest sections. Thanks to all parties for working together and to Trouver for researching and drafting this material.   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I have to add in a couple more references to the final section, which I'll do today, but this won't affect the first three parts, which are ready to be moved. Trouver (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Change from homosexuality

We have two drafts. From my minimal knowledge of the topic, neither seem complete but both are better than the existing content. The topic is inextricably tied to the VotP campaign so they have to be treated together, more or less. Before we plunge into figuring out how to merge or reconcile the drafts, should we ask if there are any major sources or viewpoints that are missing or under-represented? We have two growing collections of sources, which we should also merge. Let's make sure we're using all the best sources we have.   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Three bits of information to add: Under some general heading we should say that there were 200 students in 1978.[from the New York article] Under the VotP we should mention the 250-person rally on the Boston Commons and the subsequent Boston Globe issues.[from the BG Ombudsman article] Maybe a sentence or two for that?   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the Boston Globe (see above) under "later issues with the press" although I have never seen the necessity for dividing this section from the previous section.Trouver (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The split is mostly for the ease of discussion. The way that the two drafts split up the material differs, so let's leave the section headings for later in the discussion.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I combed the sources on the homosexuality topic and found a few that could be added to the article, so I did. I think they're all used now, where possible. Will, what is it about my version that seems incomplete? I think it's actually a pretty long section for just one aspect of a minor organization. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If everyone thinks that, between the two drafts, we've included all of the relevant sources then that's fine with me. Before merging them the next question should probably be whether there are any factual errors or mis-characterizations of the sources that should be fixed or omitted. While we may disagree about the tone or weight devoted to some issues, we can address those after we've agreed on the basic facts.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural point: I copied selected entries from Timeline of Aesthetic Realism into a section of their own. It's all unsourced. We can't use any of it directly without sources, but it may be helpful in the drafting process. Feel free to add anything that's missing.   Will Beback  talk  08:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Trouver's version on the change from homosexuality

In Trouver's version, the sources don't properly support these assertions:

• 1."This change occurred even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy."

• Reports the change as fact. No source can do that. If we had a scientific experiment as a source, we could say, "An experiment conducted by XXX found that an Aesthetic Realist claiming to have changed [did/did not] respond to homosexual stimuli while he [did/did not] respond to heterosexual stimuli." Of course, the source quoted is the furthest thing from a scientific experiment.
• Reports an opinion as fact -- that the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy.
• Isn't the best source for the claim made, since it's the *newsletter of the organization*. We have an *independent* source which says the opposite, and which I used. ("Though Aesthetic Realism gives seminars and "dramatic presentations" on a variety of topics - acting, anthropology, art, business, drugs, ethics, family, insanity, marriage, music, photography, religion - the main emphasis appears to be changing homosexuals into heterosexuals." -- Boston Globe)
• The assertion flies in the face of the evidence. The whole "Victim of the Press" campaign was borne out of the gay-change program, and this is the only single-issue that Aesthetic Realists purchased large newspaper ads for. The source does nothing to address that. The source is just an attempt by the Aesthetic Realists to engage in revisionist history.

• 2. "Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as neither a “sin” to be repented nor an “illness” to be cured, but as a philosophic matter."

• Most of the same problems as above. Reports an opinion as fact, flies in the face of what all the other sources on the topic suggest.
• Cherry-picks the source, and omits a plethora of other crucial, *independent* sources which suggest otherwise.

• 3. "That fight is present in homosexuality."
• 4. "This undervaluing of difference is a form of contempt for the world; therefore, as a man learns how to like the world honestly, his attitude toward difference changes and this affects every area of his life, including sexual preference."

• Again, reports opinion as fact. Opinion must be attributed as opinion.

• 5. "In 1971 three men were interviewed on New York City’s WNDT Channel 13 Free Time show about their change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism."

• Reports opinion as fact. The change is disputed, especially as at least one of them apparently renounced his involvement with the group. The subjects were interviewed about their *claim* to have changed, not about "their change".

• 6. "A transcript of this interview was reprinted in the book The H Persuasion, which was published that year. The book also contained writing by Siegel detailing his ideas about the cause of homosexuality, transcripts of Aesthetic Realism lessons, and narratives by men describing both why they changed and how."
• 7. "Students of the philosophy who had changed from homosexuality, and those whose lives had changed in other dramatic ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people."

• Reports the change as a fact, instead of a claim.

• 8. " In 1990, not wanting to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation decided to discontinue its presentations and consultations..."

• Reports a claim as fact. The motivations of the organization are in dispute.

If it sounds like I'm commenting on the content and not the sources, that's only because they're related. The sources are mis-applied, since no source can substantiate POV. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've numbered your points to make them easier to discuss. Please fix as needed.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any rebuttal from Trouver? When we come to compile these it'd be helpful know what we've agreed on. And please, let's try to find things to agree on!   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Trouver's rebuttal: (1) Since both versions are too long, I agree to delete the sentence, "This change occurred even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy." (2) The sentence about how Aesthetic Realism views this subject is crucial and must be expressed as it is. Many sources support this statement, which expresses the philosophic way Aesthetic Realism views the subject. If other sources are required to support this, let me know and I will provide them. (3) Again, I am willing to delete the sentence "That fight is present in homosexuality" to shorten length. I think this matter is clear even without that sentence. As to (4)(5)(6)(7) and (8) these statements are supported by sources and I will never agree to change them. It is a fact that men and women have changed; to call it a "claim" already expresses a POV. And in this matter, I believe the POV of the men and women who have changed, by WP rules, must be expressed first, and should be followed by the POV that questions the possibility of such change, which is exactly what I have done in the Press section, dealing with the Boston Globe.Trouver (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't even worth responding to. Trouver is basically just admitting that he doesn't understand what constitutes encyclopedic writing. Claims are reported as claims, no matter how fervently some believe in their veracity. An encyclopedia reports something as fact only when there is near-unanimous agreement on it among the experts. AR's gay change doesn't come anywhere close to that standard. In the face of absolutely *zero* actual evidence of the change (besides the testimony of those who said they have changed), the unwillingness of the changed to submit to any scientific experiments to confirm or deny the change, and widespread opinion in the scientific community that homosexuality is not amenable to change, there is absolutely *no way* Wikipedia could report AR's change as fact. Doing so would be completely irresponsible. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to work together towards a consensus. It's inevitable that there will be disagreements, but let's try to find points of agreement. The issue of whether change occurred or not is something we can finesse in the language. For the purpose of this drafting process, let's think of using phrases like, "they said they changed" instead of "they claimed to change" or "they changed".   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I will post shortly a more detailed response to Michael Bluejay's comments on the Trouver version. Also, I don't agree with some of the edits that were proposed by Trouver.CSaguaro (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

CSaguaro response. The following are responses to the items Michael Bluejay raised of the Trouver version. I follow his numbering scheme: 1 through 8.

1. "This change occurred even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy." Two parts of the sentence are discussed.

Statement: Concerning the first two words of the sentence “This change…” MichaelBluejay writes: “Reports the change as fact… the source quoted is the furthest thing from a scientific experiment.”

Response: In The Daily News article the change from homosexuality is reported as fact. A quote is: “Can homosexuals change?...nearly 150 men and women who have taken part in a unique educational program for homosexuals offered by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation at 141 Greene St. in Soho [have]”.

Statement: Concerning second part of the sentence: “…even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy." Three points are made: First point: “Reports an opinion as fact -- that the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy.” And “Isn't the best source for the claim made, since it's the *newsletter of the organization*.

Response: It is true that the source used is a primary source. I think the following three quotes used as additional sources will support the statement in the article: A) Deborah A. Straub, Contemporary Authors “”Known first as Aesthetic Analysis and later as Aesthetic Realism, this philosophy sprang from Siegel’s belief that “what makes a good poem is like what can make a good life”. B) Katinka Matson, Psychology Today Omnibook of Personal Development, “The basic tenet of Aesthetic Realism is that all reality is united in an aesthetic union of opposites….According to Siegel, Freud entirely avoided man's unconscious desires for good will.” C) Raymond J. Corsini, Dictionary of Psychology, “aesthetic realism: (Eli Siegel) A philosophy and a method of therapy based on these points: (a) a person should learn to like the world; this calls for (b) the understanding of the aesthetic oneness of opposites; and (c) the greatest danger is to have contempt for the world.”

Statement: Second point: “We have *independent* source which says the opposite and which I used. ("Though Aesthetic Realism gives seminars and "dramatic presentations" on a variety of topics - acting, anthropology, art, business, drugs, ethics, family, insanity, marriage, music, photography, religion - the main emphasis appears to be changing homosexuals into heterosexuals." -- Boston Globe)

Response: The phrase “…even though the subject of homosexuality was not central to the philosophy” is asserting that the purpose of Aesthetic Realism is not to enable men to change from homosexuality. Eli Siegel did not come to this philosophy so that men could change from homosexuality. The definitions of Aesthetic Realism says nothing of homosexuality. The major text Self and World makes no mention of homosexuality. The sentence as given is asserting that men changed from homosexuality even though that subject was not at all central to the philosophy--as philosophy. Aesthetic Realism was able to be of use to gay people wanting to change, but that never was its purpose.

Statement: Third: "The assertion flies in the face of the evidence. The whole "Victim of the Press" campaign was borne out of the gay-change program, and this is the only single-issue that Aesthetic Realists purchased large newspaper ads for. The source does nothing to address that. The source is just an attempt by the Aesthetic Realists to engage in revisionist history.”

Response: The victim of the press matter took in all the ways the students of Aesthetic Realism felt that the press was not reporting on the positive effect Aesthetic Realism was having on peoples’ lives. The statement that “this is the only single-issue that Aesthetic Realists purchased large newspaper ads for” has been rebutted by Cyberpathfinder below.

2. "Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as neither a “sin” to be repented nor an “illness” to be cured, but as a philosophic matter."

Statement: Michael Bluejay writes: “Most of the same problems as above. Reports an opinion as fact, flies in the face of what all the other sources on the topic suggest. Cherry-picks the source, and omits a plethora of other crucial, *independent* sources which suggest otherwise.”

Response: The quote of Sheldon Kranz to interviewer Jonathan Black could be used as an additional source: “Aesthetic Realism is the first body of knowledge which presents a way of seeing the world that incidentally affects one in terms of the way one sees women…so that one can be permanently heterosexual.” Perhaps the sentence could be changed to be simply: “Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as a philosophic matter.”

3. "That fight is present in homosexuality."

4. "This undervaluing of difference is a form of contempt for the world; therefore, as a man learns how to like the world honestly, his attitude toward difference changes and this affects every area of his life, including sexual preference."

Statement: MichaelBluejay writes: “Again, reports opinion as fact. Opinion must be attributed as opinion.”

Response: Each of these sentences is supported by the source given.

5. "In 1971 three men were interviewed on New York City’s WNDT Channel 13 Free Time show about their change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism."

Statement: Michael BlueJay writes: Reports opinion as fact. The change is disputed, especially as at least one of them apparently renounced his involvement with the group. The subjects were interviewed about their *claim* to have changed, not about "their change".

Response: See response to #1 above as to the Daily News article. However, the sentence could be changed to: “In 1971 three men who said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism were interviewed on New York City’s WNDT Channel 13 Free Time show where they spoke of their experiences.” Concerning the statement: “apparently renounced his involvement with the group” just because a person stopped studying Aesthetic Realism, it says nothing about his change from homosexuality.

6. "A transcript of this interview was reprinted in the book The H Persuasion, which was published that year. The book also contained writing by Siegel detailing his ideas about the cause of homosexuality, transcripts of Aesthetic Realism lessons, and narratives by men describing both why they changed and how."

7. "Students of the philosophy who had changed from homosexuality, and those whose lives had changed in other dramatic ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people."

Statement: “Reports the change as a fact, instead of a claim.”

Response: Again the response to #1 above as to the Daily News article is relevant here. The sentences, however, could be changed as follows: "A transcript of this interview was reprinted in the book The H Persuasion, which was published that year. The book also contained writing by Siegel detailing his ideas about the cause of homosexuality, transcripts of Aesthetic Realism lessons, and narratives by men who said they changed describing both why they changed and how." "Students of the philosophy who said they had changed from homosexuality, and others whose lives had changed in other dramatic ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people."

8. " In 1990, not wanting to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation decided to discontinue its presentations and consultations..."

Statement: “Reports a claim as fact. The motivations of the organization are in dispute.”

Response: I’m not sure what the claim here is. The sentence from the article is a) stating that presentation of the change from homosexuality was stopped and b) reporting the reason the Aesthetic Realism Foundation gave for this stoppage. I don’t think either of those points is in dispute. To make this clearer, the words “decided to” could be deleted: “In 1990, not wanting to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.” CSaguaro (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

1. A newspaper article(!) reporting the change from homosexuality as fact is not proof of the change, it shows only that the article author either made the same sloppy POV mistake or has the same bias that CSaguaro has. There are certainly sources that say the change *wasn't* real, too, but we don't report *that* opinion as fact, either. As I've said repeatedly, the efficacy of the change hasn't come *close* to being substantiated (a lone newspaper article by a sloppy writer is the furthest thing). Let's break this down: Either CSaguaro's knows full well that his attempt to use a newspaper article to prove that the change is ludicrous, or he sincerely believes that it's valid. If he sincerely believes that it's valid, he's not competent to edit an encyclopedia. If he knows full well that it's ludicrous, then he's not editing in good faith. Either way, because of that, I'm not going to waste my time replying to any of the rest. Once CSaguaro starts acting like a real editor then he can join the discussion. Until then I'm not required to engage in what amounts to a poor imitation of actual discussion. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't really matter whether the men and women changed or not. Let's not get stuck on that minor issue.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Daily News is a valid secondary source and I believe I summarized it accurately. The Boston Globe is also a valid secondary source and that too is used. It would be more useful to address the points I raised than to go on about me. By the way, I don’t need the Daily News article to "prove" the change from homosexuality.CSaguaro (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

MichaelBluejay's version on the change from homosexuality

The version MichaelBluejay posted is derisive and definitely POV. Sources include his own website, as well as anonymous comments on other websites. Entirely omitted is the philosophic basis of how Aesthetic Realism sees this subject in favor of a cartoonish version. From the beginning Aesthetic Realism is presented as out for publicity, “riding the buzz”. The truth is that the only reason Aesthetic Realism and Eli Siegel dealt with the subject at all is because men, like myself once, did not like themselves for being homosexual and were looking for a way to change—and we found it. Sure some men decided that Aesthetic Realism wasn’t for them and they preferred to live a gay lifestyle which, of course, is their right. But you would never know from this version that there are men who have lived meaningful, fulfilled heterosexual lives, including marriage and children, for 10, 20, 30+ years. The controversy and opposition can be presented, but it has to be in an evenhanded way. CSaguaro (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, CSgauaro, the latest anonymous Aesthetic Realist. Wow, you sure know a lot about POV for someone who has never edited a single article on Wikipedia! Tell me, are you another sock puppet like the one Aesthetic Realist Arnold Perey created?

You're right that the philosophic basis of how Aesthetic Realism sees homosexuality is missing. So I just added a new section, quoting Aesthetic Realists nearly exclusively. You'll note that I didn't quote myself once. In fact, with the exception of the Smithsonian review (which appears on AR's website), *every single* source is Aesthetic Realists' own words. So have fun arguing against yourself.

You object that in my version "Aesthetic Realism is presented as out for publicity". Well, since that's an accurate characterization, what do you expect? AR's first book on the subject, which I cite, said, "Since 1965 there has been a more or less continuous effort to have some coverage of the documented changes from homosexuality through the study of Aesthetic Realism." And tell me, if the Aesthetic Realists didn't want publicity, then why did they hold vigils outside the homes of NY Times executives, protesting the Times' lack of coverage? And in the double-page ad in the NY Times which the AR folks blew a a third of a million dollars on, they said, "We say what history will say: the American press has blood on its hands, has caused misery and death, because for years it has withheld the news that men and women have changed from homosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism." That sure sounds like wanting publicity to me. Maybe if the AR people didn't want to be seen as wanting publicity, they shouldn't have aggressively and repeatedly demanded it. Because apparently people like me misinterpreted those demands for publicity as a desire for publicity.

About the efficacy of the gay change program -- okay, I'll bite. What's the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's estimate of the percentage and raw number of gays who underwent the program who remain happily non-gay today? Wait, don't tell me -- they don't say, right?

About the earlier section I already posted, there are nearly 30 separate references, and of those only three are to my website, because it's the only reference I know of for those items. By all means, if you know of other good independent sources for those items, please share them. By the way, I notice you didn't complain when I referenced AR's self-published sites. Why is that? MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think there are any relevant sources that are omitted. As to your [Will's] question about factual errors or mis-characterizations, I feel there are many mis-characterizations in MichaelBluejay’s version. Here are some instances:

--There is original research. In the MichaelBluejay version there is:

A1. “All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it sufficiently….” … Aesthetic Realists see the contempt harbored by gays to be a problem, because they believe that "the greatest sin that a person can have is the desire for contempt,"(59) and that "contempt causes insanity; in fact...it causes all mental trouble."(60|61)

The first source (59) says, “All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it sufficiently…” This is put this together with a statement from the other two sources (60,61) “contempt causes insanity” to make a new point–implying that Aesthetic Realism presents homosexuality as insane and a sin. But this is a conclusion that’s not in either source, and not what Aesthetic Realism actually says.

-- In the MichaelBluejay version there is:

B1. "Aesthetic Realists frequently describe the change from homosexuality as "permanent"(68), though many of those who underwent the program reverted to gay life, or said they realized that they had never really changed in the first place".(77|88) The source(77) is an unnamed source on his self-published website, the source(88) is a comment on a website.

--And finally, when a source is given in the citation, the actual quote from that source is very often not provided. This makes it difficult to see how the statement in the article is a true summarization of the source material. CSaguaro (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've lettered your points to make discussion easier. Please fix as needed.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we start discussing these, are there any more?   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are more. Let me put together a more complete list. CSaguaro (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to bullet point 4 under number 1: “The whole ‘Victim of the Press’ campaign was borne (sic) out of the gay-change program, and this is the only single-issue that Aesthetic Realists purchased large newspaper ads for.”

It is absurd to say that homosexuality was the "only single-issue that Aesthetic Realism purchased large newspaper ads for." As has been stated many times on these pages, homosexuality is not now, nor was it ever, the main focus of Aesthetic Realism.

1. Choice magazine, February 1969: “Can Academic Good Work Come ‘Non-Academically’?” an ad for Eli Siegel’s book “James and the Children.” (The ad also advertised other Definition Press publications.)

2. Weekly ads during the 1960’s and early 1970's in the New York Times for Aesthetic Realism Saturday night general presentations. General presentations were not about homosexuality. They were dramatic readings of poems, essays, and lectures by Eli Siegel and reports given by students of the classes he was teaching in poetry, national ethics, the arts and sciences.

3. “The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel Is True” -- Full page ad in the New York Times on Monday, August 16, 1976. It contains an outline of the philosophy with only one small paragraph devoted to homosexuality. This is confirmation that Aesthetic Realism, even during this period, did not make the subject of homosexuality prominent but rather treated it as one subject among many that the philosophy addressed.

4. Double page ad in the New York Times, January 10, 1990 (pages A14 and A15): “The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel is True: A Letter to the American People” dealing with the value for people of the philosophy as a whole. It has statements from students of Aesthetic Realism covering a wide variety of topics which Aesthetic Realism discusses. Again, only one small paragraph about homosexuality, proving again that homosexuality was not singled out for prominence by Aesthetic Realism. This ad and the one mentioned just above were the largest and most prominent advertisements ever placed by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation and they do NOT highlight the matter of homosexuality. Topics treated in this ad include “Why people don’t like themselves,” “The purpose of love,” When we eat the world becomes ourselves,” “The self wants to be like art,” “How should we see people?” “There are two kinds of anger,” “What guilt is,” “The most important international question,” and several more.

5. October 13, 1990. Op Ed page of the NY Times. “The Only Answer to the Mideast Crisis” about the approach of Aesthetic Realism on the subject of Mideast peace.

6. November 20, 1991: National page of the NY Times (page 13), “Ethics: The Only Answer for the Economy,” dealing with how Aesthetic Realism sees the subject of economics.

7. January 30, 1992: USA Today op ed page 9A: “Ethics: the Only Answer for the Economy.” Same ad as the one placed in the NY Times.

8. February 25, 1992: USA Today (main news section page 5A): “Love, the Economy, and Confidence,” dealing with the Aesthetic Realism approach to these topics.

9. February 29, 1980: New York Times (page C24): "25th Anniversary Exhibition at the Terrain Gallery."

10. February 19, 1982: Backstage Magazine (page 53): "The Purpose of Drama is to Like the World."

11. During the 1990’s many ads were placed for Foundation events. I will gather a list of these as soon as I have the time to do the research.

Cyberpathfinder (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are not *single-issues*. Were #'s 5-8 *ads*, or editorial? How *large* were all these "ads", especially #2? Can you make scans available of them? #3 isn't anything close to "confirmation that Aesthetic Realism, even during this period, did not make the subject of homosexuality prominent", since AR ran *six* huge ads in various major newspapers in 1978-79 for the gay change program. Prior to 1990 when AR abandoned that program, the ads for the gay-change program were the *overwhelming majority* of AR's large advertising placements. Anyway, the statement you're arguing against isn't even in the article...but maybe it should be. MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

CSaguaro's comments on MichaelBluejay's version. Below are specific instances of mis-characterization of sources, missing sources and inaccuracies in MichaelBluejay’s version that I said I would provide. However, there are some general mis-characterizations that might not come across in the list below. For instance, the repeated use of the term “Aesthetic Realists” is depersonalizing. The flesh and blood men and women who study and teach Aesthetic Realism are presented as some kind of amorphous block. They are real people. In fact, there is a general negative POV tone to this version. Further, there is an attempt (unsupported by sources) to present the Aesthetic Realism Foundation as out for publicity as opposed to wanting to be of use to people. And finally, but perhaps most importantly, there is how the change from homosexuality is presented. This change is not a claim and it is not theoretical. The way of writing about it in this version is offensive and insulting to me, my wife and many other men and women. I know with my body and my marriage that the change from homosexuality is a real cherished fact. I don't need a secondary source to verify. But in the meantime there are secondary sources that describe the change. What is written in this article will affect the lives of many living men and women.

A couple of technical notes. What I post here incorporates what was in my previous post. I group my comments by the sections in the version. Also, I will be away for three days, so I won’t be in a position to respond before then.

SECTION Aesthetic Realism view of homosexuality

A. The first part of the first sentence: “Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as a mental issue resulting from one's contempt of the world, especially women,” The citation is for the book The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality. It is not clear where in the book the idea of mental issue is obtained. That phrase seems to be not in keeping with the spirit of book.

B. Second part of first sentence: “and that by studying Aesthetic Realism a gay person could purge his contempt and ‘get better’”. The source sentence is a statement of Ellen Reiss from The Daily News: "We are not psychiatrists; psychiatry has essentially failed. People who go to psychiatrists don’t change. They don’t get better." The statement is about psychiatry not homosexuality. The phrase “don’t get better” which was said about psychiatry is then used as the source for “get better” in relation to homosexuality. This is mis-characteriation.

C.Starting with the second sentence and continuing to the end of the paragraph, two sources are put together to come to a new conclusion. First there is the quote: “All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it sufficiently….” And then the article continues: “… Aesthetic Realists see the contempt harbored by gays to be a problem, because they believe that ‘the greatest sin that a person can have is the desire for contempt,’ and that ‘contempt causes insanity; in fact...it causes all mental trouble.’”. The first source “All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it sufficiently…” is put together with a statement from the other two sources “contempt causes insanity” to make a new point–implying that Aesthetic Realism presents homosexuality as insane and a sin. But this is a conclusion that’s not in either source, and not what Aesthetic Realism actually says. This is original research.

D. The reference to the “bold double page ad” is misleading, making it seem as if the whole ad is about homosexuality. Only about 5 percent of the copy is. The use of the word “bold” seems to be an unsupported opinion.

E. The sentence “the group conducted therapy sessions at their headquarters”. There is no source for this.

SECTION History

F. In the first sentence, the phrase “get the media to publicize” is a mis-characterization of the source to make it appear Aesthetic Realism was out for publicity. There is a difference between being out for publicity and wanting people to know something that could be of use to them.

G. The sentence beginning “Encouraged by the interest generated….” This implies cause and effect which is not supported by sources and so is original research. .

H. This same sentence ends with “…started offering counseling”. There is no source for counseling.

I. The reference to the National Lampoon cartoon is mis-characterized. The implication is that the Victim of the Press button is being ridiculed. However, the cartoon is lampooning the “wearing of many buttons” and shows a picture of a man wearing several buttons, one of which is the victim of the press button.

J. The sentence “Shortly after the New York Post….the Aesthetic Realists stopped wearing them.” Again this implies cause and effect which is not supported by sources and so is original research.

K. The sentence ‘Before its release…he was edited out of the film.” The sentence is not sourced.

L. The sentence “Beginning in 2004…Michael Bluejay…” This sentence is not sourced.

M. The sentence: “In 2010, an Aesthetic Realism supporter refers to a critic of the group as ‘flamboyantly homosexual’”. The source is an anonymous comment on a website; the “critic of the group” is Michael Bluejay. This source is unusable.

SECTION Cure

N. The second sentence “However, critics often derisively refer to the Aesthetic Realism program as a ‘cure’…as has the New York Times, New York Magazine, and others” The word “derisively” seems an opinion. Who the “critcs” are is not clear. The sources for “and others” includes Toby Johnson’s self-published website and a 1998 anonymous chat room discussion of a living person once associated with Aesthetic Realism. These sources are unusable.

SECTION Effectiveness of Change.

O. The first sentence contains “…though many of those who underwent….” There are two sources given: one is an anonymous comment on MichaelBluejay’s self-published website, the second is a comment posted on a parenting website. Both sources are unusable.

P. The sentence “Critics have also been skeptical….” Quotes gay activist Allen Roskoff. The source is the magazine Queerty whose motto is “Free of an agenda. Except that gay one.” This is an obscure source, hardly unbiased. The quote of Allen Roskoff is an opinion presented as fact.

Q. The sentence “One critic offered to fund….” has as source an anonymous comment on MichaelBluejay’s self-published website. This is not usable.

SECTION How Aesthetic Realism sees homosexuality.

R. The first paragraph is repeated earlier.

SECTION Negative effects on those who sought the change.

S. The source for the first three sentences is Steven Greenberg’s book Wrestling with God and Men. This seems to be a second-hand account containing opinion and not fact. Once I get a copy of this source, I may have more to add.

T. The sentences from “One person who underwent the Aesthetic Realism program….” to the end of the paragraph have as source an anonymous comment on MichaelBluejay’s self-published website. This is not usable.

SECTION Why the Foundation stopped offering change counseling.

U. The first sentence presents two reasons why the Aesthetic Realism Foundation stopped presenting the change from homosexuality in 1990, namely the “atmosphere of anger” and that homosexuality is “by no means central to Aesthetic Realism”. The next sentence begins “The Boston Globe disagreed”. The placement of this second sentence implies that the Boston Globe is disagreeing with the reasons the Aesthetic Realism Foundation gives for stopping presentation of the change from homosexuality. This is mis-characterization since the Boston Globe article is from 1982, eight years earlier. Also the Boston Globe article is used to counter the statement that homosexuality is “by no means central to Aesthetic Realism”. This also is a mis-characterization. Many persons were interested in Aesthetic Realism because of how men had changed from homosexuality. But, as philosophy, homosexuality is not central to Aesthetic Realism. Its major text, for example, contains no mention of homosexuality.

V. The third sentence begins “Critics also point out….” Who are the critics? There is no source given for this. Also in this sentence the double-page ad taken out by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is again made to appear to be all about homosexuality. About 5% of the copy is about that subject. CSaguaro (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could folks please use whatever scheme they choose in order to give their points unique identifiers? It doesn't help to have several 3s or Bs. B3 would be unique, for example.   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO CSAGUARO

Use of the term "Aesthetic Realists". Use of this term is widespread, including by the Aesthetic Realists themselves in their own book "Personal and Impersonal: Six Aesthetic Realists" (also listed on Amazon), the Baltimore Sun (quoted on the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's website), the Village Voice (1969 and 2008), New York Magazine[1], Getty Images [2], photographer EA Schwartz [3], the book Gay American History [4], professional historian Mark Hufstetler Bozeman [5], Bill Samuels [6], and Anthony Haden Guest [7]. Existence of the common use of this term is more than substantiated. Not that I think we should use another term, but how do you suggest we succinctly refer to the people that everyone else refers to as Aesthetic Realists? (e.g., in sentences such as, "Aesthetic Realists say that their views about homosexuality are being misrepresented by their critics.")

"Attempt for publicity." Already defended in detail above. Not my fault if you won't discuss.

Whether the change is a fact or a claim. You write, "I know with my body and my marriage that the change from homosexuality is a real cherished fact. I don't need a secondary source to verify." Good for you that you don't need a source for yourself. But an enycyclopedia does. That's the point. People can't just waltz into an encyclopedia and start presenting their opinions as though they were undisputed facts. Because there is dispute on this issue, starting with the New York Times review of the H Persuasion in 1971 which reported the idea of conversion as a claim, not as a fact. You're welcome to your sincerely-held belief. But the strength and sincerity of your belief doesn't erase the doubt of so many others. In the absence of proof (vs. CSaguaro's assertion), we have to report a controversial, disputed claim as just that--a claim.

A. Whether contempt is a mental issue. If contempt doesn't exist in the mind, then where exactly does it exist? AR's book describes contempt as a psychological issue. And psychology is the study of the mind, as everyone knows. Also remember that I quoted an Aesthetic Realism faculty member who said that Eli Siegel asserted that contempt "causes all mental trouble".

B. Reiss' "don't get better" quote. You wrote, "The statement is about psychiatry not homosexuality. The phrase 'don’t get better' which was said about psychiatry is then used as the source for 'get better' in relation to homosexuality. This is mis-characteriation." Response: See the context in the article ("Gays who have gone straight") and then tell me that again with a straight face.

C. AR view of homosexuality/contempt. You're right, I edited so that the readers can draw their own conclusions.

D. Double-page ad. I think anytime someone throws down a third of a million dollars on a double-page ad in the New York Times, that counts as "bold". In an encyclopedia we do shy away from adjectives, but when something is so blatantly obvious and over the top, we'll sometimes take the liberty of describing it in terms that most reasonable people would agree with. But I'll defer to WillBeback on whether the word "bold" is appropriate here. I do agree that the section would benefit from clarity that the ad wasn't exclusively about homosexuality. I couldn't think of a good way to work that in the first time, but I made a stab at it just now.

E. Gay change therapy sessions unsourced. Okay, I added a source. There are certainly plenty to choose from.

F. Attempt for publicity. Already covered in detail above. Source described accurately.

G. Why counseling started. You wrote, "The sentence beginning “Encouraged by the interest generated….” This implies cause and effect which is not supported by sources and so is original research." Oh, so after AR got some press about its ability to convert gays, after specifically courting that coverage (by its own admission), and gay people sought the change from AR, it was just a coincidence that AR started offering its gay change program? And doesn't The H Persuasion itself brag about the interest generated by the press coverage, and relate that to the publication of the book, and the beginning of consultations? But anyway, this isn't very important, so I'll edit it to take out the word "encouraged".

H. Gay change therapy sessions unsourced. Same as E., above.

I. National Lampoon Cartoon. I don't agree that any change is necessary, but I edited it slightly. You're welcome to suggest another alternative.

J. When/why stopped wearing buttons. Article wording is neutral and does not claim a cause and effect. You're welcome to suggest an alternative.

K,L. Not sourced. Actually, they are sourced. But I'll make you a deal: If the Aesthetic Realists will write on their website CounteringTheLies.com that

M. Suitability of 'flamboyantly homosexual' source. Wow, it sure seems like you, like the anonymous poter, think you can slander me by alleging that I'm "flamboyantly homosexual". Anyway, the only reason I didn't include my name in the article is because I thought it wasn't necessary, and I thought it would invite objection. But in fact, if you want to name me by name as the person accused by an Aesthetic Realist of being "flamboyantly homosexual", I would be flamboyantly delighted. So by all means, if you want to identify me that way, be my guest. As for the WP statement and the source, the only statement is that a critic was described thusly, and that's exactly what the source says. Nevertheless, I would agree to revising it to say, "In 2010, a person claiming to be a supporter of Aesthetic Realism..."

N. Critics/"cure". I clarified the wording slightly.

O. Efficacy. Okay, what sources do you suggest? You know that the change didn't "stick" for most people, if they even changed at all. Those people profiled in The H Persuasion, and those who counseled others on how to not be gay -- where are they now? You know the answer as well as I do: They're no longer allied with AR, most of them. I cited what I could find. If you have other sources, please share them.

P. "Critics have also been skeptical..." You wrote, The quote of Allen Roskoff is an opinion presented as fact. No fact is claimed in the article, other than that critics said something. The source shows Roskoff saying it. The credibility of the journal and the person making the statement is not at issue, so ad hominem attacks don't work here. Roskoff is a critic who made a critical remark. It's simple.

Q. Critic offering to fund the experiment being anonymous. The critic offering to fund the experiments is not anonymous, that person is me. Again, I left my name out because I didn't want to invite complaint, but if you're going to complain that I'm anonymous (when I'm not), then fine, I'll just go ahead and add my name to that bit.

R. Repeated sentences. The repeated sentences are essential for the sections they're in. Anyway, I'll see if Will wants to weigh in on this one.

S. Opinion and not fact. It's not reported as fact. It's a quote of a claim.

T. Self-published so unusable. Disagree. The wording of the Self-Published Sources policy is very clear that the intent of the policy is to prevent unreliable sourcing of facts. The policy makes no prohibition about sourcing to show that someone said something, which is how the source is used in this case. Further, the policy makes additional exceptions for self-published sources, such as the publisher being recognized in the field in question. I've certainly been identified in the media as a former member and current critic of the group. Again, the source in this case simply for a quote of an opinion, not a statement of fact.

U. Why AR stopped the program. Okay, I clarified the Boston Globe quote.

V. Critics not identified. Okay, I'll identify myself as a critic. Again, I left my name out so as not to invite objections, but if you object to my *not* being named, then I certainly don't mind being identified as a critic. MichaelBluejay (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First, my mistake about the lettering of my points. I have now changed the points of my first post (dated 03:20, 27 May 1010 (UTC)) from A, B to A1 and B1. MichaelBluejay has responded to my comments about his version. I will review and respond, likely tomorrow. CSaguaro (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we are first commenting as to sources, I still believe that MichaelBluejay's self-published website cannot be used as a source for this article. Also, comments on webpages and blogs are not allowed. Those sources and the statements they are supporting cannot be used. CSaguaro (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, and already addressed. If you want to continue to object then you have to address the substance of my explanation, not pretend that my explanation was never given. MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sources, The NY Post article is OK to use, and to link. The ad may be referenced, but shouldn't be linked. Writings which have not been published in a reliable source should not be used at all. I crossed out several a while ago, though the formatting may not be clear. The ARF site may be used as the "official" website of the movement, but the "counteringthelies" website does not share that status and so it should not be used.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) I'll agree not to link the ads, unless we can link to them where originally published.

(2) I believe you're still misappyling the "reliable sources" policy, and keep ignoring what I point out about it: The point of the policy is to make sure that matters of *fact* are reliably sourced. It's quite a different matter to show the *existence of a claim". For example, if you claim that there's a green three-legged dog in Boston, then producing the actual three-legged dog is just as good as a NYT article about the dog. Few people would claim that the presentation of the dog itself is poor quality evidence. Likewise, if the statement in the article is that someone said something, then showing those actual statements are best evidence, even if the media in which they're published aren't acceptable for substantiating matters of *fact*. CounteringTheLies is *absolutely* relevant and absolutely acceptable for the contexts in which it's cited. For that reason, I insist that it be included, in the contexts in which it's cited.

(3) Anything you struck out is not showing as struck out on my end. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the strike-throughs; which I've already explained above. There are plenty of sources so a few more or less won't ruin the material. MBJ, your draft is about 2250 words, while the current article is about 3500 words in total, and the current Homosexuality/VotP material is about 900 words. Trouver's draft is a little longer than that. Could you try to shorten your draft to something more like 1500-1800 words at most? Dropping stuff that doesn't have the best sources will make it more compact. While this topic may be underrepresented in the current article, we do need to maintain balance between the elements.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All editors, please note Trouver's June 7 rebuttal to various points above. Thank you. Trouver (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I still believe you're misappyling the "reliable sources" policy, as I've said multiple times. I don't agree that the sources you struck through are invalid, and I'll continue to argue that they should be included. I agree that this section is long compared to the article, yet just about all of what's included is important. Before I work on chopping it down, what do you say about making this longer version a separate article? After all, Arnold Perey got to create the "Timeline of Aesthetic Realism" article, which is of dubious value. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that blogs are almost always considered unreliable sources. Ed Green's blog is a reliable source only for his own views, and this article isn't about his views. We can use official ARF publications and websites, but we can't use the self-published views of current or former students.

Let's avoid grandstanding or settling old scores, and stick to writing a draft that will meet everyone's approval. It doesn't have to be perfect - it just has to be good enough so that everyone can live with it.

A separate article would need to have sufficient sources to show it is a notable topic in and of itself. Typically, we would leave a one-paragraph summary in this article. What do editors think of that possibility?   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're still misapplying the reliable sources policy, and you're still pretty far from addressing my explanation of why these sources are acceptable *for the contexts in which they're used*. The quote from the article sourced to Ed Green is, "Aesthetic Realists...believe that "contempt causes insanity; in fact...it causes all mental trouble." Ed Green is faculty at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation and certainly qualifies as an Aesthetic Realist, and what he shows demonstrates his beliefs. Yes, the article isn't about *his* beliefs in particular, but it's partly about Aesthetic Realism's beliefs. One thing the article doesn't address specifically is that Aesthetic Realism is two things, intertwined: It's a philosophy created by Eli Siegel and it's a group/phenomenon which has been the subject of a lot of criticism. A philosophy doesn't hold pickets in front of the NYT building and doesn't buy ads in major newspapers professing a cure to homosexuality, people do that. Since the two concepts are so intertwined they're best represented in one article, but they certainly both have to be represented. What Aesthetic Realists believe about the topic that they're most famous for is certainly, absolutely, unquestionably relevant. BTW, the strikethroughs show up for me now. On the separate article, I agree that this means the version here would get shortened to a mere paragraph. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the self-published quotes from AR students any more than we could use the self-published quotes of Buddhism students in that article. If you still have a doubt about this then ask at WP:RSN. I don't think there are enough sources to establish the notability of this issue as a separate article. It's not even clear what the title would be. What is the single strongest source?   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Will, you're still not listening to me, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Best evidence about what the policy says is WHAT THE POLICY SAYS, not what others say about the policy. The self-published quotes are valid FOR THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY'RE USED. The SPS policy is very clear that the reason that SPS generally aren't used is that they can reliably validate FACTS. When we're just showing the EXISTENCE OF OPINION, it's another matter entirely. That's why the policy says, in part, "Self-published or questionable sources MAY BE USED as sources of information about themselves" [emphasis added], and someone's opinion on a topic is information about themselves. If you don't like the policy then you might advocate getting it changed to explicitly add the kinds of bans that you want. In the meantime, you should stop trying to misapply the policy.

The gay cure is what Aesthetic Realism is MOST KNOWN for. Even New York Magazine said so. That means it either merits or more substantial treatment in the article, or a separate article. I intend to eventually create that article. If you don't like it you can RfD it. That would be pretty ironic considering you initially gave your blessing to the questionable Timeline article. You know, the Scientologists have been banned from WP, but when the Aesthetic Realists try to damage their article in multiple breathtaking unencyclopedic ways, your response is to coddle them -- locking down a censored version, refusing to allow a proper lede for months, throwing out valid sources, and opposing proper treatment of the issue for which the subject is most notable. In bending over backwards to be "fair" to the Aesthetic Realists, you're being UNfair to the Wikipedia community, and to its readers. The AR people shouldn't be humored any more, they should just be told to take their POV and their weird notions of what an encyclopedia is and go home. But no, instead we're supposed to discourse with them as though they're not being completely unreasonable. Whatever. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The material you're using from Green doesn't mention homosexuality. Also the two quotations from the essay are repetitive. The whole draft really needs to be shortened and tightened up. Please find ways to reduce the volume of text.

I'll post a request on WP:RSN, and give you the link so you can add your view. Then we can get other views on this, since I don't think we're getting any closer to agreement.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:RSN#Aesthetic Realism. I think part of the disagreement we're having is the definition of "themselves" used at WP:SPS. To my mind, Ed Green and Countering the Lies are not AR, or even the ARF. The ARF has an official website which we use even though it's self-published. The Ed Green blog would be fine to use if we ever write an article on him. Anyway, feel free to add your views to the thread and we'll see what the community says.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

MichaelBluejay, there's only been one response at RSN, which isn't unusual. If you have anything to add now would be the time to do it.   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Next step

We now have two versions of the draft. The pros and cons of each have been discussed in detail, with rebuttals. I observe that many of the disputes of these drafts have been relatively petty - which is a good thing. There's substantial, though implicit, agreement on a wide range of issues. Our goal is a single, comprehensive account that verifiably summarizes reliable sources using the neutral point of view. How do we get there from here?

I propose that I could take the two drafts and weave or merge them together into a single narrative, without significantly changing any text and keeping the two drafts distinct. I imagine the process would be to create an outline, to cut and paste the draft texts into it (perhaps using formatting to differentiate them), to cross out redundant or off-topic material, and to propose text where appropriate.

That sounds like a lot of work, so if someone has a better suggestion please make it! Other possibilities are trying to bring in a fresh person to do that (though willing mediators are in short supply nowadays), or having everyone participate in an editorial free-for-all, or trying to discuss individual issues and here and decide them one-by-one. I don't think those would work well in this case but maybe I'm wrong.

Would editors like me to create a merged draft?   Will Beback  talk  09:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to try and merge the two versions into one. CSaguaro (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a better suggestion please make it. Yes, my suggestion is that we don't merge an acceptable version with an awful version. Trouver's version is exceptionally weak, misses important points, and doesn't approach WP standards. Why would we even consider using that material, except to pacify those who are being unreasonable? Is WP supposed to serve the interests of editors who want a bad article, or is WP supposed to serve its readers? MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What's your alternate proposal?   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MBJ mischaracterizes both the Trouver version and his own. The Trouver version is the far stronger of the two, presenting a coherent summary of how Aesthetic Realism approaches this subject and of the criticism. The MBJ version relies heavily on his own self-published web site which exists to slander Aesthetic Realism and create a false and unfavorable impression of it. It takes material out of context and yokes it unnaturally together to arrive at conclusions that are not true and are, in any event, original research. It editorializes by using highly charged words that enflame more than inform. It is also disproportionately long. It relies heavily on sources from the gay press that are hardly unbiased toward Aesthetic Realism. In short, it is as far from neutral, dispassionate encyclopedic writing as you can get. I think we should give CSaguaro a try at merging what is truly usable in both versions. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

CSaguaro is welcome to give it a try. I'll be away from Wikipedia for a few weeks. I encourage everyone to stay civil and to work towards consensus. There are several noticeboard for questions about specific policies, and editors may also place requests for comments on other issues (WP:RFC).   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I will give it a try. CSaguaro (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"The MBJ version relies heavily on his own self-published web site." No. This is simply not true. What percentage of sources is that, really? Count them, post it here, and then repeat your charge again with a straight face. You also fail to mention that each time this source is used, it's to quote what *actual Aesthetic Realists said*, or to show the existence of the criticism that the article alludes to. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's information, I looked at MBJ's footnoting and found the following:

Length of his homosexuality version: 2164 words

Number of footnotes: 65

(8 from his own self published site, 12 from the gay press, gay reporters or gay blogs, 6 using Aesthetic Realism publications for original research, 8 using other sources for original research, and 5 from other self published websites.)

That makes 39 (or well over half of his footnotes) from these questionable sources. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You get a whopping *12%* of footnotes from my site (though I don't think you counted correctly; I get 10%), and from this you say that my version relies "HEAVILY" on my own site? 10-12 percent, huh? And again, you also fail to mention that when this source is used, it's usually to quote what *actual Aesthetic Realists said*, or to show the existence of the criticism that the article alludes to. As for the rest, nice job on trying to change the topic. And you can't dismiss the gay press just because you don't like them. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion

CSaguaro posted a rebuttal (above) to Michael Bluejay's critique of the Trouver version.CSaguaro (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Timeline is "of dubious vaule." If there is consensus among others, my vote is to cut it.

I would rather keep the section on homosexuality as part of the Aesthetic Realism article, as much as I dislike the fact that it is too long in proportion to the importance it has to the philosophy as a whole. I would also be fearful that the men and women who have changed woud be attacked personally for their desire to change from homosexuality were the article separated out and focused on that subject alone. There is sympathy for men and women who want to change their sexuality from male to female or female to male, but the LGBT does not sympathize with the desire of a man to change from homosexual to heterosexual. I think we've seen enough on these talk pages to be sure that it would incite bad feeling on both sides. I think we are better off trying to get something everyone can live with, even if, as Will says, it's not perfect. LoreMariano (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Timeline: I've posted a thread at Talk:Timeline of Aesthetic Realism. Basically, we should only have sourced material and unsourced material should be deleted.

Re: Overall homosexuality section: Weight is always one of the hardest things to agree on in contentious topics. In this case, the "proportion to the importance it has to the philosophy as a whole" is the wrong measurement. The way that Wikipedia judges weight is by the prominence of the issue in reliable, secondary sources. A movement may write a hundred pamplets on X and only 3 on Y, but if the media and scholars write 10 articles that mention Y and only 3 that mention X then we're not going to focus on X. We mostly follow the lead of secondary sources.

Re: Sympathy: I hope that won't be an issue. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, where applicable, should suffice. I think that we should largely avoid mentioning the names of concerned individuals unless they are especially noteworthy within the topic (like Krantz). That's especially true of living people.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The homosexuality section needs to have a length that is in keeping with the overall article. It should certainly be no longer than any other section in the article and I would argue that it should be even shorter since it is not as primary to the philosophy as the arts or poetry. As for secondary sources, for the past twenty years Aesthetic Realism has been most widely known for things other than homosexuality and there are a wealth of secondary sources that show this. I can certainly put together a compilation of sources for the past ten years at least. Even during the years when homosexuality was part of the curriculum at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, there were also on-going advertisements and articles about other aspects of Aesthetic Realism as well, some of which are sourced and more of which can be.

BTW, I found two additional “single issue” ads from those years in addition to the ones I cited in an earlier post: an ad for the 25th Anniversary Exhibition at the Terrain Gallery (New York Times, February 29, 1980, page C24) and an ad titled “The Purpose of Drama is to Like the World” (BackStage magazine, February 19, 1982, page 53). I added them to the list.

I too think the timeline can be omitted. It is largely unsourced or poorly sourced and doesn’t really add anything of great value to the article. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 7:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) I agree that the Timeline can be omitted from this article, and I wouldn't lose sleep if the Timeline article were deleted, too. (2) LoreMariano's personal concerns about how people will react to a separate article on the H issue have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. (3) In the last 20 years, most actual media articles (not op-eds written by Aesthetic Realists themselves) about AR have focused on the cult allegations and the gay-change program. (4) An ad for an *event* is not the same as an ad for an *issue*. My point was, AR wasn't buying big ads to tout its solution to racism, poverty, alcoholism, or trouble in marriage: The only *large* *single-issue* ads purchased were about the *gay change program*, and AR purchased not just one but plenty of them. Revisionist history doesn't work here. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the statements directly above this post are not correct. See "later issues with the press" in Trouver version above: "The Only Answer to the Mid-East Crisis" was a large ad purchased by students of Aesthetic Realism in USA Today and other papers. In addition there are over 300 articles in local papers serving communities of color on Aesthetic Realism as the answer to racism.Trouver (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We can get to the racism material next. We shouldn't make too much of these ads unless they've been commented on by secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of the ads I've listed above are "single issue" ads not "event" ads and some, especially the economy ads and the mideast peace ad, were larger than the ads about the change from homosexuality. There are many others. As time permits I'll continue to add to the list I've provided above. While I definitely agree that we shouldn't make too much of the ads, they are important in terms of placing the discussion of homosexuality within the entire scope of Aesthetic Realism and how it has met the general public all these years. The “event” ads are as relevant as the “issue” ads if the point is to show that publicity undertaken by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was not centered exclusively nor even primarily on homosexuality. Ads for drama and art events were always the emphasis in keeping with what Aesthetic Realism is, and there are a number of them.Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We can mention that the ads were placed (assuming we have some way of verifying it) but we cannot, on our own, make any conclusions about their significance.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

With all the backs and forths going on, it's really good that we have found common ground in one area; it seems that everyone agrees that we should delete the Timeline of Aesthetic Realism. Nathan43 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Only Answer" ad was placed *after* had abandoned its gay cure program! So, during the gay-change era (1970-1990), the ONLY large single-interest ad I see is the gay-change one. So that was clearly AR's focus at the time. Are there other large single-interest ads between 1970-1990? I might have missed them in the discussion since the AR people have been floating so many ridiculous red herrings. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, the above is not correct. This editor persists in stating facts incorrectly, and shows blatant disrespect for WP guidelines requesting that editors be polite, assume good faith, and refrain from personal attacks. Trouver (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the timeline should be eliminated. While Trouver is correct that there was no focus on one issue, I think we should move on at this point since conclusions cannot be drawn from ads. Am I correct in thinking that some issues of contention have been eliminated? Cyberpathfiner (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough about the Timeline! This page is for discussing the above drafts. I've proposed the Timeline article for deletion, so it'll be gone in a week if there's no objections. As for the ads, remember that we can't draw any conclusions from them, like saying that they prove something. At most we can simply say that an ad ran, and perhaps a very, very brief quotation or summary. But this is a side-show. The bulk of the material should be based on reliable secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged Version of Section on Homosexuality

CSaguaro: I merged the two versions of the section on homosexuality. Here it is.

The references are not appearing at the end. And I don't know why. Can anyone assist? CSaguaro (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done LoreMariano (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality

A controversial aspect of the philosophy concerns the assertion that men and women could change from homosexuality through studying its principles. In 1946 writer and WW II veteran Sheldon Kranz (1919-1980) was the first man to report that he changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: from a homosexual orientation (he was no longer impelled toward men) to a heterosexual one that included love for a woman for the first time in his life. Kranz was married for 25 years (until his death) to Obie award-winning actress Anne Fielding.

In keeping with its general approach, Aesthetic Realism views homosexuality as a philosophic matter. A fundamental principle of the philosophy is that every person is in a fight between contempt for the world and respect for it. Siegel stated that this fight is present as well in homosexuality. He explained: “All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it sufficiently. This changes into a contempt for women.” According to the philosophy, in the field of love and sex, a homosexual man prefers the sameness of another man while undervaluing the difference of the world that a woman represents. This undervaluing of difference is a form of contempt for the world; therefore, as a man learns how to like the world honestly, his attitude towards difference changes and this affects every area of his life, including sexual preference.

Beginning in 1965 supporters of the philosophy began an effort to have press and media report on the change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. In 1971 men (including Kranz) who said they changed through Aesthetic Realism were interviewed on New York City’s WNDT Channel 13 Free Time show and the David Susskind Show, which had a national syndication. The book The H Persuasion, published that year contained writing by Siegel detailing his premise about the cause of homosexuality, transcripts of Aesthetic Realism lessons, and narratives by men who said they changed describing both why they changed and how. In response to requests from men and women wanting to study Aesthetic Realism, Siegel designated four consultation trios, one of which, Consultation With Three, was for the purpose of teaching men who wanted to change from homosexuality. In 1983, five other men who said they had changed from homosexuality were interviewed on the David Susskind Show. The transcript of this interview was published in the 1986 book The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel and the Change from Homosexuality. .

Some men who began to study to change from homosexuality discontinued their study. Others, who at one time stated they had changed, later decided to live a gay lifestyle. Still others indicate that the change from homosexuality they first experienced in the 1970s and 80s is authentic and continues to the present day.

Victim of the Press

With the exception of a brief 1971 review calling The H Persuasion “less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers,” the New York Times never reported that men said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Students of the philosophy who said they changed from homosexuality or in other large ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people. In the 1970s they mounted an aggressive campaign of telephone calls, letters, ads and vigils in front of various media offices and at the private homes of editors. Many wore lapel buttons that read: “Victim of the Press”.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1978, ads were placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” They were signed by 50 men and women. With few exceptions, the press in general either ignored or dismissed the assertion of persons who said they changed.

The gay press and gay reporters were generally hostile to Aesthetic Realism. A 1982 Boston Globe article written by “the first openly gay reporter” on its staff, interviewed primarily gay therapists and then reported that the “assertion” of change through Aesthetic Realism was “a claim staggering to psychiatrists and psychologists.” About 250 people protested the article on the Boston Common. The Globe’s ombudsman later wrote in his column that the article was biased against Aesthetic Realism and that it contained “strong, negative words without attribution” and “inaccuracies”.

Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, accusing the philosophy of offering a “gay cure” and expressing skepticism that homosexuality could or should change. Persons within the gay pride movement associated the desire of a man to change from homosexuality with a lack of pride in a gay identity, and saw Aesthetic Realism as biased against those living a gay lifestyle. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation stated unequivocally that it supported full, completely equal civil rights for homosexuals, including the right of a man or woman to live their life in the way they chose. In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.” CSaguaro (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References

CSaguaro (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Final Section

In keeping with the evolution of this article, I suggest changing the title of the final section to "Criticism and response". Trouver (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the merged version of the sections on homosexuality and "victim of the press" have been posted here since July 9, 2010 with no comments, I will post them to the article. CSaguaro (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)