Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Jones/Yarhouse study

I'm sorry but was that even a real study? I don't know who the authors are but given who the publisher is... this is a really dubious piece of work. And "...followed hundreds of patients of conversion therapy for several years. The study found that, for many of the patients, conversion therapy was successful..." -- if you follow hundreds of test subjects then of course you're going to find "many" for whom the "therapy" was "successful". It should be successful for the majority, not just some people who weren't entirely gay to begin with. And what happened to the other people, anyway? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this study is obviously not from a reliable source, is there any user who can confirm that it's even being represented accurately? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon:, you claim that "given who the publisher is... this is a really dubious piece of work." @Roscelese:, you claim that the study is "obviously not from a reliable source." InterVarsity Press (IVP) is a well-respected publisher. There is no basis for claiming that something is dubious, merely because it was published by IVP. Jeraphine, in your edit summary you indicate that IVP is unreliable because it is an evangelical Christian publisher. Where on WP, can you find anything that says something is not a reliable source simply because it was published by evangelical Christians? It would be a very strange policy for Wikipedia to exclude all sources published by evangelical Christians. WP would be engaging in invidious discrimination if it did not allow citation to sources written by Christians.

You say that you don't know who the authors are. Jones and Yarhouse are both university-level psychology professors. Jones teaches at Wheaton College; Yarhouse teaches at Regent University.

A very large number of those participants in the study did successfully change their sexual orientation from gay to straight. I don't know the exact percentage, and I don't have the study in front of me. I, too, hope that one of our readers, who does have the study, can tell us what percentage. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you apparently don't know much about that study yourself, why did you re-add it?--McSly (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion I've started on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I gave my response on the noticeboard, but the short answer is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. No one ever said that Christian sources are inherently unreliable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

MrX told us to build consensus on this talk page. I realize that some of you don't like this study. But why on earth is that a reason not to allow the study on Wikipedia. It appears to me that you are trying to censor all research with which you don't agree. What you have done confirms this suspicion that Wikipedia is liberal. Is there anything wrong with this study, other than that you don't agree with it? The fact that the study was published by Christians is NOT a valid reason to censor it.70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is not science, a topic that is not science cannot be the subject of scientific study, therefore Jones/Yarhouse is just an opinion, thus unsuitable for this article. Q.E.D.. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the paragraph starting This methodology fails to meet a number of ideal standards for longitudinal, prospective studies. It reveals in depth why the study is not a scientific study. In essence it's a call-for-anecdotes distributed via a partisan channel with no control groups controlling for either the issues discussed in the paper or the ones omitted / glossed over. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@70.128.120.202: The material is WP:UNDUE. It represents a WP:FRINGE view, and at most deserves a sentence or two. I've noticed that you have tried to shoehorn a pro-conversion therapy point of view into various articles and a category. You have also continued to edit war, even after being warned, which is not a good path forward.- MrX 02:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Warren Throckmorton's self-published opinions are not scientific journals, and IVP is not a scientific journal. Substantial deviation from a 2002 study of 202 respondents suggests methodological differences (errors) that would be explored in a meta-analysis. There was also no discussion of drop-out numbers in the small sample. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Obama

The President of the United States of America recently supported banning conversion therapy for minors. Ben-Natan seems to think this should not be mentioned, and removed the information here, giving as justification that Obama is not a mental health professional. This has to be the most spurious justification for an edit I've ever come across at this article. The President of the United States taking a stand against conversion therapy is major news, and the article would fail its readers if it did not mention this. It's not relevant at all that Obama himself isn't a mental health professional; what he is doing impacts the profession. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This was added to the United States -- Legal Status section. It is beyond absurd to suggest that a White House policy statement about conversion therapy is not relevant to the legal status of conversion therapy in the United States. The Executive branch makes law also, through regulations.(70.179.14.230)

Please remember to sign your posts, IP. I agree that this should be mentioned somewhere in the article; I believe, however, that you have given it much more space that it deserves. I still prefer what I added over your version (and over Ben-Natan's attempt to remove this information entirely), but I would prefer not to get into a three-way edit war. Ben-Natan is behaving unacceptably by removing this information despite opposition from other editors, and for the moment I've decided to revert the article to your version rather than my preferred version. Since Ben-Natan has suggested sockpuppetry, I should point out that your IP address (70.179.14.230) geolocates to San Diego, California, while I'm based in New Zealand. Flyer22, Roscelese, and MrX do you have any comments? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have shortened the Jarrett quote. I think the sockpuppetry discussion is a red herring: the material is easily verified to be true, and is clearly germane to the legal status of conversion therapy. I have not signed up because I almost never edit Wikipedia articles. (70.179.14.230)

Thank you for shortening the quotation. My preference would still be to reduce discussion of the issue to a single sentence: "In 2015, American President Barack Obama indicated his support for efforts to ban conversion therapy for minors." I don't think even a short quotation is needed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen all the latest WP:Edit warring going on at this article, via it popping up on my WP:Watchlist, but I haven't read all the debating or paid much attention to the WP:Diff links; this is because I have far too many contentious topics on my WP:Watchlist, and I often need a break from some of it. But I did pay a little attention to this text, which Ben-Natan reverted, and I didn't see why all that content needed to be in the article.

IP, to sign your posts, you should type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take the time to look carefully at what has happened. Ben-Natan has been edit warring to remove information about President Obama's opposition to conversion therapy for minors. I agree that the IP added too much material about this, but Ben-Natan has opposed even a brief, one-sentence discussion of the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I likewise think a long quote is unnecessary. It might be relevant to mention the context, though (the petition), otherwise we can't tell from the current text if it's a part of a platform, something said in response to a Republican proposal, ? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, yes, if Ben-Natan wants all of it removed, I disagree with removing all of it. But it seems that my "04:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)" post is clear to you that I think that the IP added too much detail. Flyer22 (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm glad that people here checking the edit history without just relying on the interpretations of FKC. To save time to all here I can only say that the "brief, one-sentence discussion of the issue", seemed to me at the moment really a bit longer...

Still I think that only when the White House totally bans this type of sessions it would be worth mentioned in the article, but, of course, I am to honor the majority's decision. Ben-Natan (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

btw, in the Hebrew wiki we generally don't rely on anonymous edits and there are many reasons for that (such as editor x could edit from a near computer with another i.p or ask someone to do so, and more). Ben-Natan (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The material I added consisted of a single sentence. Ben-Natan can be seen removing it here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the White House cannot totally ban conversion therapy. That would take an act of Congress, which is impossible with the current Republican controlled Congress. This announcement offers White House support to movements in the states to pass state bans on conversion therapy.~~~~.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.14.230 (talk • contribs)

Flyer22, Roscelese, and MrX, Do you agree to the current long-term\full textual description? I think it's too long and needs to be shortened from the reasons I presented above. Ben-Natan (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I support a shorter version. Mentioning the spokesperson is not utile. Including an extensive quote seems overWEIGHT, especially since no specific legislation has been proposed. When I hear that an politician "supports" something, my mind conjurs up images of yellow ribbon decals with the words "support our troops" on the backs of minivans.- MrX 20:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I think context is necessary, while a long quote is unnecessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite, respectfully, I think the details you added here are unnecessary. Could you please explain why you consider them necessary information? Please note that while I am happy to leave a reasonable amount of time for discussion, I will eventually revert you (after a few days, let's say) if you don't respond to this request for clarification. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Critique of the Critique

I added a reference to a position paper critical of the American Psychological Association's rejection of reparative therapy in two places: under United States / 21st Century and under Reparative therapy. This position paper is published by the National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers, which has apparently focused its efforts on reforming American psychological practices since it was founded. Because this is a reform association, it's understandable that its positions are considered "debated". This is why my additions to this article are written in the form of "xxxx has been critiqued by the NAPPP" rather than saying "xxxx is a bad idea" or "xxxx has been widely critiqued".SocraticOath (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone can see that this inclusion is an example of an Alternative Theoretical Formulation as opposed to Obvious Pseudoscience or one of the other restricted kinds of information. SocraticOath (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is presently considered pseudo-science on Wikipedia. Debating the rights or the wrongs of this is rather pointless; you aren't going to change it, and if it becomes clear that your objective is to change it, then you can expect editing this article to be a frustrating experience. I am only being honest here. I should also advise you that changing a section heading on the talk page, as you did here, is unacceptable. The heading forms part of my comments on this talk page, and it is not up to you to revise it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Is there a relevant WP standard for talk pages that specifies which kinds of changes are appropriate when continuing this kind of conversation? 146.23.3.250 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You can find the talk page guidelines here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Using common sense also helps. You will note the part reading, "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Just to make it 100% clear, I do not think that there is a good reason to change the section heading in this case. It's provocative and distracting. Better to stick to substantive issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I vigorously object to using anything from NAPPP unless accompanied by reliable, independent sources. NAPPP appears to a group that splintered off of the APA about nine years ago. As far as I can tell, they don't have much credibility, but more importantly, they are not a third party. Their criticism of the APA is WP:UNDUE.- MrX 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The NAPPP is a lobby group advocating changes in who can prescribe what drugs in the US medical system. They are in no way a reliable source for anything in this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of fringe source Nicolosi

Ben-Yeudith recently reverted an edit I made removing the addition of a fringe source (reparative therapist Joseph Nicolosi), with the comment, "I thinks it's actually a good edit." I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. Per WP:RS, articles have to be based on reliable sources, and no, Nicolosi doesn't count. His views place him far outside the mainstream, and there would normally be no reason to use him as a source. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but Ben-Yeudith's change does need to be reverted. It significantly alters the section on reparative therapy, based on a very questionable source.Roscelese, Flyer22, and MrX please take note. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that forbids Nicolosi from being reminded here "for bad or good", and when his claims are brought they should have the most direct source - his own writings. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Tagging User:SocraticOath that have made the edit. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicolosi practices a form of therapy that has been widely condemned by mental health organizations. He is the definition of fringe. I am not saying that he should never be used a source, but it is proper to use him as a source only when there is a clear and compelling reason for doing so; in this case, there is no such reason. Your edits, and those of SocraticOath, have compromised and distorted the section on reparative therapy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your personal taste of the edits has been described. My stance has also been described. It is now the debate of other Wikipedians. I have nothing further to say. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project, so refusing to say anything more is not really an option, as I'm sure you'll find. To refuse to say anything more is in effect to back away from editing the article. Would you revert me again if I reverted you? You changed the sentence reading, "Joseph Nicolosi's Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, published in 1991, introduced reparative therapy as a term for psychotherapeutic attempts to convert gay people to heterosexuality", by replacing "term for" with "practice of", a confusing and unjustified change of meaning; it definitely needs undoing. Among other things, it implies that Nicolosi single-handedly invented therapeutic attempts to change sexual orientation, which certainly isn't true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I refuse, you invent this, I said I don't have anything to say (add) besides what I already did. Since you are now in minority, we shall wait for the conversation to be developed. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you have said nothing more of substance, I have taken the initiative by removing the text garbled by SocraticOath's edits. Note that this is not a revert; it is a new edit. I have left the fringe source you restored in the article for the time being, though I still think it should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Exposing your misinterpretations is firm "substance". Ben-Yeudith (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, this self-published content cannot remain in the article. It violates any number of policies and guidelines including WP:SPS, WP:SECONDARY, WP:PARITY and WP:MEDRS, and thus lacks consensus. Ben-Yeudith's assertion that "when his claims are brought they should have the most direct source - his own writings" conflicts with Wikipedia's policies.- MrX 12:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, the comments I added are now sourced by both Nicolosi's self-published material and a scholarly article from "Clinical Social Work Journal" --- Look: -----77. Bright, Chuck (Winter 2004). "Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: An Examination of the Processes Involved when Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation". Clinical Social Work Journal 32 (4). Retrieved April 2015.------- The Clinical Social Work Journal is consistent with the article self-published by Nicolosi regarding this question ("What is meant by the phrase, 'reparative therapy'?") and therefore this conversation is resolved. SocraticOath (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the conversation is not resolved. You've just made a large number of major changes, many of them questionable. You can expect me or other users to revert them in the near future. Frankly, if you make significant changes to an article about an highly controversial topic without discussion, then this is what you can expect. I see, for example, that you changed the lead so that it reads, "Conversion therapy is a range of treatments (including reparative therapy)", replacing the previous statement that "reparative therapy" is a synonym for conversion therapy. I can see why you would make that change, and even sympathize up to a point, but you can still expect me to reverse it. I know very well that practitioners of reparative therapy see it as one particular kind of conversion therapy, but the fact remains that "reparative therapy" is often used as a synonym for conversion therapy in general. The term is often so used in the literature and the lead needs to reflect that; a more detailed explanation of the issue is suitable for the main body of the article, but hardly for the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at the source from the APA here (http://web.archive.org/web/20110407082738/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001.aspx), you will be able to see that the term reparative is not identified as being another word for conversion therapy. Note that this is an independent source. SocraticOath (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm busy with other articles at the moment, but it's very easy to find sources that use reparative therapy and conversion therapy as synonyms. Anyone familiar with the literature on the subject would know this, and you'll find denying it won't help your cause. Even the document you referred to actually does use the two terms this way: "In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy". Obviously the terms are being used as synonyms here, and it's the same story in similar statements from other organizations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate your looking into it, but I don't think it's obvious! Let's ask this question in a new heading. SocraticOath (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious. It is completely consistent with what one finds in other statements by professional bodies. Trying to create uncertainty where there is none profits nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the thread, "What is reparative therapy?" for a continuation of this subject. SocraticOath (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"a disease" -who said that?

In Yoshino 2002, pages 799 to about 801 (page 31-33 in the viewer) we read that there's a trend in the mental health profession, namely the deletion of homosexuality per se as a disease. Thus Yoshino says that "In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations" on page 800, and Yoshino writes that "these organizations are relatively insulated from the depathologization of homosexuality, as they are less reliant on a literal disease model to justify their conversion practices" (page 801).

I had added a comment in the lede paragraphs (now undo'd) to reflect this ideological basis for the continuation of conversion therapy by religious organizations. Doesn't it make sense that professional mental health is primarily concerned with curing diseases, while religious organizations have a different purpose? SocraticOath (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The reworded version here seems to adhere to the source, so I'm fine with it.- MrX 02:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Lobotomy

In checking some claims, I came across a few places where lobotomy was mentioned as a procedure used for conversion therapy. In Germany and the UK, it seems that the documents are a little easier to obtain freely. Only the article in the Atlantic (referencing the film Changing our Minds by James Harrison) and stories about Evelyn Hooker, including one published by the American Psychological Association, indicate that this was practiced in the US. SocraticOath (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the lobotomies also appear in Yoshino 2002. Yoshino chose to focus mostly on the therapies that lasted longer through the 20th century, though. I'm not sure when the lobotomies stopped; I suppose that before 1973, when homosexuality was a diagnosis for disease, any contemporary psychiatric treatment may have been prescribed for homosexuality, right? SocraticOath (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Now Lobotomy has a section beneath "Sex Therapy". Sparse content, just enough to show that this really happened. I was incredulous, too! SocraticOath (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What is Reparative Therapy?

There is some disagreement as to what reparative therapy is. Should it be used as a synonym for conversion therapy? Or should it be a type of conversion therapy? This is important because the subject of the Texas GOP endorsement is reparative and not conversion, and for other reasons. SocraticOath (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is futile to raise this issue. Reparative therapy and conversion therapy are typically used as synonyms in the literature dealing with them. Perhaps that's mistaken, but it frankly doesn't make a difference for Wikipedia's purposes whether it is mistaken or not. The lead should simply state that reparative therapy and conversion therapy are synonyms; an explanation that they are considered different is already present elsewhere in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the APA position paper (http://web.archive.org/web/20110407082738/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001.aspx) uses the terms "conversion" and "reparative" side-by-side and refrains from defining "reparative". In this article (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf), the term has an even more strange position: it appears in the titles of books, and is introduced as a "search term". There is absolutely no attempt by the writers of the APA task force report to use the word "reparative" in a sentence, even though the report is over 120 pages long. So the APA won't define the word... who will? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article on a webpage by UC Davis Psychology (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html) talks about "conversion therapies" and also "reparative therapy", and also "so-called reparative therapy". This article does not equate the two together either. SocraticOath (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The report from the New Jersey court ruling did not mention the word "reparative". (Mary Pat Gallagher. "Gay 'Conversion Therapy' Consumer Fraud Ruling First in U.S.". New Jersey Law Journal. Retrieved 5 May 2015.) SocraticOath (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

These two reports only quote from the APA statement, discussed above where the terms are used side-by-side. (Valerie Jerrett, Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. "Petition Response: On Conversion Therapy") --- (American Medical Association policy regarding sexual orientation, American Medical Association, 2007-07-11, retrieved 2007-07-30). SocraticOath (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This paper mentions neither "conversion" nor "reparative". (Committee on Adolescence (1993), "Homosexuality and Adolesence" (PDF), Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 92 (4): 631–634, retrieved 2007-08-28) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This paper seeks to classify "reparative therapy" as "conversion therapy". But the paper does not say that "reparative" is another word for "conversion"; in fact, it discourages the use of the word "reparative" entirely. ( Haldeman, Douglas (December 1999), "The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy" (PDF), The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies 4 (1): 1–4, archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-03-02, retrieved 2007-08-28) SocraticOath (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a synonym for conversion therapy. As defined in the infamous Spitzer study: "At the present time, only a very small number of mental health professionals (primarily psychologists, social workers, mental health counselors, and pastoral ministers) provide therapy with the goal of helping their clients change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Therapy with this goal is often referred to as "reparative therapy."" KateWishing (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This study says that psychotherapy with the aim of changing homosexual sexual orientation is often referred to as "reparative therapy". But it does not use the word "conversion therapy" in any sentence. This statement doesn't provide a definition for "conversion therapy" and it doesn't define "reparative therapy" very well. It's not that reparative therapy is good/modern/effective/well-accepted, but only that "reparative therapy is different from aversion therapy, sex therapy, psychoanalysis, ex-gay ministry, and behavior modification". SocraticOath (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources that treat reparative therapy and conversion therapy as synonymous. For example:

1. Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I. Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 280
2. Björn Krondorfer, Male Confessions: Intimate Revelations and the Religious Imagination (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010), 262
3. Douglas C. Haldeman, "25: The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy," in Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, ed. Linda D. Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 694
4. Gilbert Herdt and Bruce Koff, Something to Tell You: The Road Families Travel When a Child Is Gay, Between Men--Between Women (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 60

There are quite a few more as well.- MrX 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any direct quotes as examples of this? I'm especially looking for any sentences using the word "reparative" that satisfy any of the criteria below, or any variation thereof, in my comments under "Recent edits". SocraticOath (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, are there any additional points well made by these papers that could be included in this article? SocraticOath (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

SocraticOath, respectfully, you are wasting your time with this issue. If you search through the literature, you will find the terms "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" used in various ways, very often but not always as synonyms. You are free to disagree that the terms should be used as synonyms, but Wikipedia isn't the place to debate this. Since "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" are typically used as synonyms, that is how the lead should present the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I think that this discussion has helped me isolate my point, which is reflected in my reply to KateWishing, and this morning's edit (California time). Hopefully the community will find this less erroneous than my previous work! SocraticOath (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

SocraticOath has continued to make large numbers of significant changes to this article without discussion. This process is getting out of hand, and I would ask the user to step back and discuss things with other editors prior to make any further significant changes. I accept that SocraticOath's edits are well-intentioned, but the latest few have unfortunately added original research and unverifiable information. I have removed some of it, but other editors need to carefully look through SocraticOath's changes. This edit by SocraticOath is particularly unfortunate and needs to be reverted. It restored the mention of "reparative therapy" as a separate treatment method to the lead, which is inconsistent with the use of "reparative therapy" as a synonym for conversion therapy in general, as I carefully explained when I removed that material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I included this word in the lede paragraphs to express the term's own ambiguity. If you look at the paragraph below about reparative therapy, you can see that it has a specific meaning when used in its own context. If the article fails to make this distinction, then I think the reader will have a poor answer to these questions: Can I get sex therapy if I go in for reparative therapy? Will I have to undergo aversive therapy if I ask for reparative therapy? How many lobotomies were performed by reparative therapists before drugs became the best practice? SocraticOath (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What the section on reparative therapy says is that according to one person "reparative therapy" is a specific form of conversion therapy. Now, the person in question may well be quite right, but that doesn't alter the fact that "reparative therapy" is typically used as a term for conversion therapy in general. The lead needs to reflect that common use of the term. Your edits there are only confusing matters. While I think some of your changes are improvements, many of them do seem to have the result of portraying conversion therapy in an ever so slightly more favorable light, and I don't think that is going to go unnoticed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you address the second half of my last reply above please, starting with "If the article fails to..."? SocraticOath (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I already did. Perhaps you failed to understand what I said? Let me repeat it: there is one reliable source stating that "reparative therapy" is a distinct kind of conversion therapy. Compare that to the numerous sources that use the term as synonyms. That one source is simply not a sufficient basis for making the sort of changes to the lead that you want to make. You seem to have a personal view of this subject that is getting in the way of neutral editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going home for the weekend, so I won't continue this with you. In my opinion, by reviewing the sources that use the words interchangeably, there are a few things in common: 1) Failure to provide a definition for reparative therapy. 2) Distaste for the word reparative therapy, because of the its theoretical implications. 3) Research only relevant to conversion therapy in the post-Stonewall era; not relevant to the era during which psychiatric treatments were provided with various degrees of coercion. (With the exception of the APA task force report, the 150+ pager with a table in the back saying which therapy was studied when... making the distinction quite clear between the therapies attempted before and after Stonewall). SocraticOath (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this article has the option of focusing only on the "talking cure" kinds of treatments, if that's what everybody is really talking about. This would be supported by the long APA task force report, again, using the table in the back, which distinguishes between "conversion therapy" and other ways of trying to change sexual orientation, such as aversion therapy. Then I wouldn't have an issue with the current confusion between "reparative" and "conversion". SocraticOath (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view of the literature the article is based upon, but it's in no way a reason for changing the article. Since "conversion therapy" includes numerous different forms of treatment, the article certainly cannot focus only on talk therapy. You will find that most reliable sources do in fact use "conversion therapy" as a broad term and do not exclude, for example, aversion therapy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever seen any reliable source that said any of the following, or any variation thereof, in the form of a sentence? 1) Reparative therapy is another word for conversion therapy. 2) Reparative therapy, as a range of therapies used to attempt to change a person's sexual orientation, could be aversion therapy and/or some kind of counseling or other treatments. 3) Reparative therapy was practiced before the 1990s. SocraticOath (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to #1. Sources have already been presented. Can I suggest that we move on from this issue, or you start an RfC? Also, I tend to agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator's comment: "While I think some of your changes are improvements, many of them do seem to have the result of portraying conversion therapy in an ever so slightly more favorable light, and I don't think that is going to go unnoticed."- MrX 00:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While #1 demonstrates that at least one person uses the terms as synonyms, it doesn't resolve the problem this article has with the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, Appendix B, which differentiates between conversion therapy, covert sensitization, aversion relief, aversive shock therapy, classical conditioning, orgasmic reconditioning, desensitization, and a few others. By the language used it is clear that conversion therapy never includes aversion therapy. And it's not clear that reparative therapy, which appears in the bibliography, is equated to conversion therapy. SocraticOath (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This source explicitly distinguishes between the psychoanalytic methods, which it calls 'collectively "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" ' and all forms of aversive treatment. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH BASE ON SEXUAL REORIENTATION THERAPIES; Journal of Marital and Family Therapy April 2008, Vol. 34, No. 2, 227–238; Julianne M. Serovich, Shonda M. Craft, Paula Toviessi, Rashmi Gangamma, Tiffany McDowell, and Erika L. Grafsky; The Ohio State University, University of Minnesota. URL: http://www.aamft.org/imis15/Documents/Board/j.1752-0606.2008.00065.x.pdf SocraticOath (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

These persistent arguments of yours have become tendentious. The fact remains that scholarly literature dealing with this topic typically uses "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" as synonyms. It doesn't matter whether this is right or wrong or whether you agree with it or not. Going over the minutiae of individual articles and papers is pointless and diversionary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one, a direct quote from Hicks 1999, ""Reparative" Therapy: Whether Parental Attempts to Change a Child's Sexual Orientation Can Legally Constitute Child Abuse".

II. “REPARATIVE” THERAPY: IS IT PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING TO GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER YOUTHS? A. What is “Reparative” Therapy? “Reparative” therapy, a program of psychotherapy, attempts to “cure” homosexuals by turning them into heterosexuals.^33

"33. See Drescher, supra note 2, at 19, 20 (noting that “reparative” therapy is generally defined as “to change an individual’s homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one,” and attributing the coining of the term “reparative” therapy to Joseph Nicolsi[sic] from his book REPARATIVE THERAPY OF THE MALE HOMOSEXUAL: A NEW CLINICAL APPROACH (1991)); see also Leland & Miller, supra note 8, at 49 (asserting that Nicolosi is the foremost expert on “reparative” therapy)."

So this is the first article I've seen that attempts to define the term. In doing so, they categorize reparative therapy as a program of psychotherapy, reference back to Jack Drescher, and say that the foremost expert on "reparative therapy" is Joseph Nicolosi. This article clearly separates reparative therapy from aversion and other therapies. Why the insistence that Wikipedia diverge from the literature on this issue? SocraticOath (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

One article is not "the literature on this issue." You've been told how articles on the subject generally deal with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The history of attempting to change sexual orientation in Western Europe, the US, and (presumably) Australasia includes many many negative things. This is a good reason for the mental health profession to stop doing it. But "reparative therapy" as a practice never existed until Nicolosi's book was released in 1991, and there is no evidence in the literature that anybody practicing reparative therapy ever employed the techniques that are described here and elsewhere as "cruel", "torture", or "lobotomy". These techniques do fit, however, within "treatments intended to change a person's sexual orientation".

When Wikipedia's article says that reparative therapy is conversion therapy, and that conversion therapy includes aversion therapy, it makes a false statement. Either reparative therapy is a limited subset of conversion therapy (my personal feeling), or conversion therapy does not include aversion therapy (also defensible). SocraticOath (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does "Conversion therapy" include aversive / shock treatments?

This article currently combines three or more named categories of treatments under the umbrella term "conversion therapy". The first is "Conversion therapy", which is the subject of an ongoing political debate in the US. The second is "Aversion therapy", which is the distasteful practice of using electrical shocks, awful smells, or other forms of pain to condition a person's mind away from undesired attractions. The third is "Reparative therapy" which was described by certain authors as a counseling-based treatment for people who wish to change their sexual orientation.

The way the article currently defines "Conversion therapy", surgical treatments such as lobotomy and antipsychotic prescriptions are also included.

In discussions with Wikipedia contributors (see above), it has become clear that both aversive treatments and reparative treatments are desired to remain under the definition of conversion therapy. But from my reading of the sources, only two out of three categories belong. This is expressed most clearly in the article below:

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH BASE ON SEXUAL REORIENTATION THERAPIES; Journal of Marital and Family Therapy April 2008, Vol. 34, No. 2, 227–238; Julianne M. Serovich, Shonda M. Craft, Paula Toviessi, Rashmi Gangamma, Tiffany McDowell, and Erika L. Grafsky; The Ohio State University, University of Minnesota. URL: http://www.aamft.org/imis15/Documents/Board/j.1752-0606.2008.00065.x.pdf

"Reparative therapy, as a program of psychotherapy, attempts to ‘‘cure’’ homosexuals by transforming them into heterosexuals (Hicks, 1999). These therapies can include a myriad of techniques including prayer, religious conversion, and individual or group counseling. In contrast, aversion therapies are techniques which share the same goal but are behavioral in nature, such as shock therapy. Traditional methods of aversion techniques have been termed ‘‘cruel’’ (Haldeman, 2002) and would not pass current Institutional Review Board Standards for acceptable research practices."

Would Wikipedia contributors and editors please comment on what I perceive to be an inconsistency at best regarding the three named categories? SocraticOath (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will comment. The way in which you have endlessly raised the same issue, despite a lack of support or agreement from any other editor, has developed a considerable nuisance-value. Placing an RfC will achieve nothing; you are very unlikely to find anyone sympathetic to your cause. Above you cite a single article that you believe shows that aversion therapy and reparative therapy are distinct from "conversion therapy". I consider it to be trivial in comparison to various sources that use "conversion therapy" as a broad term for attempts to change sexual orientation, so I think your references to it achieve nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have cited two articles, the one above and the 2009 APA "Report of the Task Force" by Glassgold et al. The first article says that reparative therapy is no synonym for conversion therapy; reparative therapy is always only psychoanalytical. The second article makes a different point, namely that conversion therapy does not include aversion therapy. In any case, neither article reports that any reparative therapy ever included aversion therapy or the other cruel and damaging methods listed here. It is wrong to place these methods under the heading "reparative therapy". SocraticOath (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Of course - Although this is a malformed RfC in that it asks editors to answer a question about conversion therapy, rather than a specific article edit, my assessment is that conversion therapy is treated both as an umbrella term encompassing several techniques, as well as a term that is used interchangeable with reparative therapy. The article is about the umbrella term and the myriad of pseudoscience techniques that errantly attempt to change a person's sexual or gender identity.- MrX 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see my sandbox here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SocraticOath/sandbox) for the proposed correction to this article. If it's too different, I'll pare the changes down to only those which specifically address this issue. SocraticOath (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Without wanting to get bogged down too much in side issues, "reparative therapy is always only psychoanalytical" is misinformed. Its main proponents are or were Moberly and Nicolosi, and they're psychologists, not psychoanalysts. Your sandbox version states that, "reparative therapy...is a range of psychoanalytical treatments to change sexual orientation", which I believe is inaccurate. Since Nicolosi et al are not psychoanalysts, they aren't engaged in "psychoanalytical" treatment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

what if we said "counseling-based" instead of psychoanalytical? 23.118.252.62 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to my sandbox for the most recent version that I'm proposing based on these comments. SocraticOath (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to move this conversation along, here's my proposed first sentence:

Conversion therapy is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual). The term "Conversion therapy" has also been used as a synonym for reparative therapy, which is a range of counseling-based treatments to change sexual orientation.

Also, in the lede paragraph describing methods, "counseling" will become "reparative therapy". I am suggesting this change so that the article will more accurately use the term "reparative therapy". SocraticOath (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

References

That's unnecessarily wordy. The current first sentence of the article is clear and concise, exactly as an encyclopedia lead should be written.- MrX 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have another look now. 146.23.3.250 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the following for my next attempt to write a truer lede sentence.

Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is clinical counseling that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual) or, more generally, any psychiatric treatment with this aim. SocraticOath (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This proposed edit is substantively different than the current lede. As previously stated, Conversion Therapy is used primarily to refer to any treatment intended to change sexual orientation (as the lede says). Your proposed lede seeks to define it primarily as clinical counseling, a definition which is not supported by editor consensus or by common usage in reputable sources. Unless you can provide a compelling, well-sourced reason to change this, your edit is incorrect and gives undue weight to the two sources you cited. Arathald (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with Arathald. I don't see a need to change the lead, and I'm firmly opposed to the proposals that have so far been presented.- MrX 01:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

More Correct Lede Sentence

Now attempting #3.1 rework on the lede sentence. SocraticOath (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is clinical treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual) or counseling with this aim (also known as reparative therapy). Conversion therapy has been widely criticized as pseudoscience and is the subject of continuing political, legal, and ethical controversy in the United States and other countries. Medical, scientific, and government organizations in the United States and Britain have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful. United States Surgeon General David Satcher in 2001 issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed". SocraticOath (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

References

This appears to be at least the 3rd or 4th time you're attempting to make a change to the lede. You already asked the question, and there is very clear editor consensus against your version of the lede (and, more notably, for keeping the current version, which is supported by the vast majority of sources). Very importantly, you haven't responded to the concerns that other editors have, but rather have proposed several variations with the same issues. Multiple RFCs have been opened (how I got here) with the same results. I'm happy to WP:AGF, but, frankly, at this point, you're wasting your own and others' time with repeated RFCs. Consensus is clear. Please stop proposing edits with the same issues. Specifically, based on the consensus I see above, you would have to show that "conversion therapy" does not apply broadly to any kind of treatment with the goal of changing sexual orientation. Your position is supported by a few sources that you're cherry-picking, and the current lede is supported by many, many more sources cited by other editors in the various discussions. Until you can say why those sources are wrong (and the only way to do this on Wikipedia is through other sources, not what you think the term should mean based on giving undue weight to a few sources), your edits will not be accepted by the community. Arathald (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Arathald, thank you for your comments and for paying attention to my effort here. As you say, I am attempting to make a change to the lede for the 3rd or 4th time and I'm working on it here in the talk page to enable review before I try to edit. I am confused by your statement that there is clear editor consensus against my version of the lede. Without making him out to be my ally, I was encouraged previously by MrX's remark above beginning with "Of course", dated 13 May. MrX seems to agree with me that there are two definitions for conversion therapy floating around, one which is a common synonym for "reparative therapy" and the other which describes an entire class of therapies, anything done to attempt to change sexual orientation. He goes on to say that this article is about the general term. This would justify removing "reparative" as a synonym from the lede, or as I'm suggesting, to make "reparative" the synonym for another usage of "conversion". SocraticOath (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is all important because there is some confusion about terminology, allowing members of the public to mistakenly attribute aversive practices, and in fact surgical procedures like lobotomy and chemical castration, --outrageous acts by clinicians!-- to the clinics of "reparative therapists" (the narrow definition), which is clearly not demonstrable in the literature, as I have labored to show. SocraticOath (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As an alternate to my wordy "two definitions" lede, perhaps there could be a disambiguation, a "this is an article about ..." note, or something else so that Wikipedia avoids the "reparative has aversion therapy" mistake. SocraticOath (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You haven't shown that there are, in fact, two definitions in common use, only that two sources that you're cherry-picking are using the term more narrowly. The majority of the sources still use the term broadly. If you want the article to be more careful in its use of "reparative therapy" to exclude physically abusive forms of conversion therapy, you may be able to justify that by the sources. What's not justifiable is the narrowing or skewing of the definition of "conversion therapy" itself, which is very clearly a broad term applicable to both psychological and physical practices. By the way, the scientific consensus is that "reparative therapy" (as narrowly defined by you) is still an outrageous practice with long-lasting psychological and social damage. The very first source cited in the article addresses this directly, and even, in fact, argues that the term "reparative therapy" shouldn't be used, as it implies that there is something broken. It explicitly rejects the distinction between the two, which is exactly what you're trying to argue. I think you'll find that the prevailing medical and scientific literature holds similar views. Arathald (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)