Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

US slant

This is all US stuff, anything about ex-gay movements (also a US term) abroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.3.70 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 January 2012

There used to be material, but it was removed because, absent any secondary sources covering the organizations to prove that they were notable, it was functioning as promotion. Do you have any reliable coverage of non-US movements? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"psychologically harmful"

"Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be psychologically harmful." Someone had recently added "psychologically" as the penultimate word, and I deleted it because the source does not limit the harm to that. Someone else reinserted, claiming that the source actually did have it. The APA document being used as a source refers to harm repeatedly, and the only time it specifies "psychological" harm is in a quote from another document. Given that suicidal behavior is discussed in the document, and given that the results of suicidal behavior often go beyond the psychological, it seems inappropriate to place on this statement a limit which the source is not making. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Two points... First, I think we should limit the APA's contribution here to its area of expertise (psychology). When the APA refers to harm, they are talking about psychological harm, unless they specify otherwise. Second, suicidal behavior IS a psychological manifestation, particularly as far as the APA is concerned, and we have to do some pretty contorted thinking to say "changing A leads to harm vector B, which leads to result C, therefore result C is caused by A". If you're having trouble seeing why that would be faulty reasoning, you might read up on logical fallacies. If you can dig up a source that says changing sexual orientation can be seen as a sole cause of suicide, that would be worthy of discussion. But that's not what the APA material says, and in fact it actually says quite the opposite. Belchfire (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If the source doesn't use 'psychological' as a qualifier, neither should we. Raul654 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the American Psychological Association. Anything they say should be taken to be about psychology by default. Belchfire (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::If we were saying "the APA says its physically harmful", then those points may be more relevant. If we accept that APA has expertise to make a statement about psychological harm, and if we accept that that's a category of harm, then their statement that it can harm is of value -- and if they did not specifically limit their statement to say "we only mean psychologically harmful", then it is inappropriate for us to cast it otherwise. The reader will have the context that we're talking about psychological organizations; I don't see that they need your perspective on what they say more than we need what they say. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The APA doesn't even say that changing sexual orientation leads to suicide. You might want to take a closer look at the citation you are talking about. Here is the only mention of suicide in the entire report:

One result of the isolation and lack of support experienced by some lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is higher rates of emotional distress, suicide attempts, and risky sexual behavior and substance use.

I read that to say there is a risk associated with being a gay youth, not with trying to stop being a gay youth. Belchfire (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My error, Suicidalness is discussed by the APA rep in the second source for the sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's your point? That's still a psychologist discussing a psychological harm, which is why I made the edit. Belchfire (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that they say "harm". They do not say "psychological harm". We should not misrepresent what they say. If you think that because they are psychology organizations, it should be read as psychological harm - well, that's unneeded, since we are already telling the reader it's psychology organizations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are talking about psychological harm, so we should say that. You're trying to turn psychological harm into other kinds of harm, and that would be synthesis, which isn't allowed per numerous Wikipedia policies. Belchfire (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm trying to say what they actually say. You're trying to join this part of this and that part of that and who they are to say that they must mean just psychological harn, when they do not say that. "such efforts have serious potential to harm young people", "No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful." "mental health organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through therapy and have raised serious concerns about the potential harm from such efforts" You see the word "psychological" in those quotes? Now exactly who is engaging in synthesis? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting; it's not a close call, if the source said "harm" and not "psychological harm". This is not a subject where it would be a good idea for Wikipedia itself to become part of the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding "psychological" when it is not in the source clearly violates WP:NOR. No "qualification" is necessary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"some" vs. "the"

This is an inaccurate statement:

"... the major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation..."

It implies that all "major mental health professional organizations" hold that opinion. That's a pretty bold statement that (1) isn't supported by references and (2) can't really be proven. It's very easy to make this factual by substituting the word "some", which is well-supported within the article. This is a very simple matter of intellectual honesty and shouldn't be a major debate. Belchfire (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some" implies that there are others who approve, not that others have remained silent. If you feel that "the" implies that, say, the NCI or the ADA has taken a stance, please suggest wording that, in your view, would convey that not every existing medical organization has spoken, while not giving the incorrect impression that some major medical organizations approve of efforts to change LGB sexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Some" doesn't imply that others have disagreed, only that others have not adopted a position. Belchfire (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is actually the unanimous consensus of the entire profession worldwide - hence the wording. --Scientiom (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's a unanimous consensus, it shouldn't be difficult to support that with citations. Then, if there is even a single dissenting view, "some" becomes the correct wording again. But let's see your supporting references, and we can go from there. Belchfire (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As you are the one proposing a change in wording, it is incumbent upon you to show us that there are major mental health organizations in the world which hold a contrary view. None do, but feel to try and show us that there are any who hold a different position. --Scientiom (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, and you should know better than to say such a thing. "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." Belchfire (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, would you be satisfied with "major...", no "the" or "some"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Yes, I think that would reflect reality better than what we have now. Belchfire (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's simply an assertion you're making - you've yet to prove it. --Scientiom (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL! You're making the assertion that there is a "unanimous consensus". I'm merely saying that hasn't been shown, and that the article should reflect that it hasn't been shown in the absence of a supporting reference. Where is your source??? Roscelese has made a constructive suggestion that resolves the dispute, what say you? Belchfire (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is on point. Ros' proposal is a good compromise.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it'll be a bit silly to make a fuss over losing one word - I concur and agree with the compromise. --Scientiom (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede edits

Roscelese, I don't understand your opposition to my edits to the lede. Can you elaborate? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

While I think I've made it clear in my edit summaries and really asked you to start this section so you could explain your edits, here again: there's an issue with stating as fact that someone is ex-gay, has departed homosexuality, etc. Preferable is to state that someone identifies as ex-gay. In terms of this article specifically, it is also normal to begin the article with an explanation of what the topic is, so "'Ex-gay' is a term that..." is not a bad start. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, articles are about things/concepts, not terms, and saying "X is a term that" implies the latter (it's also bad writing since "X is" usually accomplishes the same effect of establishing a definition).

I still don't see a difference in how the term is defined between the version you've reverted to and the one with my edits. All I've added is that the movement actually includes ex-gay individuals, which seems pretty obvious. You aren't saying that the existence of actual ex-gay people is controversial/fringe, are you? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that "so-and-so is ex-gay" is undesirable in a way that "so-and-so identifies as ex-gay" or "so-and-so is gay" are not, due to the fringe-y nature of efforts to change sexual orientation. Perhaps, for clarity, we should resolve this issue before dealing with "X is a term." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If the definition of an ex-gay person is someone who no longer identifies as gay, doesn't saying "so and so identifies as ex gay" mean you're implicitly saying "so and so identifies as no longer identifying as gay." There's a redundant redundancy going on in that sort of overhedging. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We generally require affirmative identification rather than a failure to identify. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that we need someone (a living person, in particular) to have self-identified with a sexual orientation in order to describe or categorize them as such. "Publicly states that they have become ex-gay" and "no longer states that they are gay" are not the same. Possibly more to the point, though, "ex-gay" doesn't mean "no longer identifying as gay"; people who use it intend "no longer gay." (The current lede wording seems to be a way to try to convey this neutrally.)

But enough about me. You want to make a change; why is it important to you to declare that people have been successful in changing their sexual orientation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a difference between identifying as having a certain sexual orientation and simply having said sexual orientation. I'm not claiming that someone was "successful" in changing who they are attracted to as much as it seems that the definition of "ex-gay" (as it's presented in the article), is about someone's self-identification, which is a bit more malleable than the sex/gender they find attractive.

Also, While I'm pretty sure I've seen members of this movement identify as "ex-gay" on television (though I'm not trying to identify any individual, just make a generality), it doesn't take an expert to see the definition of ex-gay (no longer identifying as gay), see it occur with someone ("I'm no longer gay, guys") and apply the term to what you see, even if the person doesn't explicitly say "I am ex-gay"). Am I missing something here? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that. Some people, for instance, find that their sexual orientation is fluid and that a way they identify at one time might not be the way they identify at another time. This isn't the same thing as what "ex-gay" groups promote and that "ex-gay" figures say has happened, which is the idea that sexual orientation can be changed on compulsion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going off the definition provided in the article. The definition, people who "once considered themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual but no longer assert that identity" is purely about self-identification. Even the other definition provided, that ex-gays are people who have had a "basic change in sexual orientation" is not incompatible with sexual orientation, which states that sexual orientation is broken down into categories that "are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity" and that sexual orientation is a self-identification based on several factors, only one of which is their actual sexual attraction to a particular sex. The articles homosexuality, heterosexuality, and Heterosexual–homosexual continuum also give credence to this notion that sexual orientation is sexual identity. I hesitate to advocate changing the definition to fit your desired wording of "identifies as ex-gay" because I've seen the same definition elsewhere, and changing it to fit a particular POV would be a bit too OR.

If your concern is that we not give undue support of the idea that people can change their sexual orientation/attractions just by willing it, perhaps we can add more to the lede. I think that the lede itself addresses your concern sufficiently, but maybe we can think of something to add. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, given the fringe-y-ness of what these individuals claim has occurred, I don't think that we can just state in Wikipedia's voice that they have changed their sexual orientation. Maybe we can compromise (your wanting to say it's made of people, my concern about fringe) - how about we use your wording ("relies on the involvement of" and so on) but phrase it as "involvement of individuals who formerly..." rather than "involvement of ex-gay individuals, who..." and add "and state that they have caused their sexual orientation to change" or something similar? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that idea. Maybe something like: "The ex-gay movement relies on the involvement of individuals who formerly considered themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual but no longer assert that identity; these individuals may either claim that they have eliminated their attraction to the same sex altogether or simply that they abstain from acting on such attraction." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it! Do you want to implement it or shall I? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias and Inaccurate Information

After going over the supposed medical research that claims that homosexuality is genetic or inborn and "unchangeable", I have discovered that much of it is inconsistent and based on faulty medical data and incomplete evidence. Moreover, there is quite a bit of medical evidence where people, who deal with same-sex attraction, is not physiologically fixed and that one can actually have their "preferences" revert back to heterosexual orientation. As such, I believe that this article is heavily misleading the public by not providing the links that show the alternative medical/scientific evidence. Not only that, but judging by the writing of this article, it is heavily biased against those who have decided to leave the homosexual lifestyle. ----- {User:EmilyGreene1984|EmilyGreene1984]] (talk)) 12:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see your medical license. Partyclams (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in seeing his/her peer-reviewed sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with EmilyGreene. For the record, I believe the vast variety of human sexual orientation is placed there by a loving creator to make life more interesting, so any attempt to homogenise us will fail. This article still seems a bit preachy. It does not present evidence for the opposite POV, which must surely exist. Or does it? Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that all scientific fields these days are politically charged? You cannot swim against the river.

Recent changes...

Given that we've got an editor who's recently a) made a lot of serious changes to the article, and b) edit-warred to keep in some scare quotes and POV language, does it make more sense to go through all their edits with a fine-toothed comb, or simply revert to the version prior to their large batch of edits and ask them to start again? I haven't looked in detail at the edits--just popped up on my watchlist as a probable edit war, and it's pretty clear that Scientimom could use some policy-based guidance here. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing when I looked over his edits over the last few days to this article. There's so much that's been changed and most of it violates our NPOV policy. Since there's so much then I think a revert to this edit [1] on the 28th of February is required to salvage this article before too many readers dismiss this article as POV filled. Govgovgov (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert. I should warn everyone that according to Alison, for the past several months Scientom was socking and logging out/in to make "controversial" edits. I can only assume the reason was to evade scrutiny.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. Can you link to where Alison said this, for the record? Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede problems

I have just moved a large body of text from the lede which was independent from the article itself. It appears that Scientiom is trying to make sure that the Ex-gay articles are flooded with the information that it is a psudo-science. Now I have no problem with that information being there, but creating walls of text detailing those arguments is a violation of WP:WEIGHT even when we take into consideration that the scientific point of view has a privileged spot on wikipedia. Additionally Scientiom has been briefed on WP:LEDE several times and now it appears that they are just ignoring those conversations.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Erm, that was the version which you yourself mostly proposed. --Scientiom (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

please address the concerns on the talk page. That version was created with the understanding that you were trying to improve the encyclopedia, your recent edit made it clear that you were not interested in improving the encyclopedia or follow the rules but rather to push an extreme WP:POV.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That allegation doesn't hold water considering that the version that was posted was mostly what you proposed yourself, and I've already briefed you on WP:PSCI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, and WP:FRINGE. --Scientiom (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You were briefed on what was supposed to be in the lede, we both went over the policy that the lede can only contain information contained within the article, you had the exact same conversation on another page for the exact same reason, and then you went back to the ex gay movement page and inserted effectively the same edit that you and I had talked about when it didn't reference anything within the article. It's not an allegation.

I'm reposing this conversation on Talk:Ex-gay movement.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd like to know the problem with the edit - is all the text not properly and well sourced with high quality citations according to WP:V? Is it not in line with WP:PSCI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, and WP:FRINGE? --Scientiom (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit adds 3921 charicters to the lede which doesn't summarize anything within the article. The article contains nothing about DOMA, or the Pan American health orgonization yet your addition almost doubles the size of the lede, overpowering the summary with detailed information regarding not only stuff not covered in the article, but detailed information which is critical of the topic of the article. This edit doesn't summarize the Pan American Health orgonization's statement, and makes that look like that event was a key moment in the ex-gay movement. We should note that you added that material after we worked on a summary together, I let it slide, and other editors removed it for the same reasons I have set up this talk discussion.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We might note that this isn't the only time you have had this conversation. Talk:justice#Lede problem, and Talk:LGBT rights at the United Nations#The lead and opposition section, both pointed out the exact same policies about the lede sections that you and I discussed (I don't care if it was a banned editor, the policy quoted still stands). This shows that you already knew the problems with this edit. My only recourse is to assume that your WP:POV overrides your consideration of wikipedia policy, or that we are dealing with a WP:COMPETENCE issue.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Scientiom. WTF? You seem to have a grasp of various policies (when it suits your needs). You are heading towards a topic ban if you keep going down this path.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OneByOne

The merging-as-a-result-of-AfD has dumped a whole lot of detail about OneByOne into this article. That group does not seem to have been a significant player in the field, and does not merit this depth of coverage, under WP:BALASPS. Can we come to consensus that most of it can be stripped out? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I rather think so. The whole reason the group wasn't able to sustain an article was because they're completely non-notable; it's obvious that the weight given to their self-published claims is vastly undue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I merged any relevant information in, and I have no opinion as to how much or little is appropriate. My goal was solely to move the information per the AfD result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in including it in the "other ex-gay organizations", as Roscelese revised it, but the organization does not merit anything beyond that. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I encourage those who are undeleting material to join in this discussion. Material introduced by merge does not automatically protect it form consensus editing, and currently there are more editors who have indicated that this material should be deleted than there were who !voted in the AfD for merging. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Having just reverted back to Roscelese's version, I would like to weigh in. The OneByOne article was deleted because it was not notable. Coatracking it on to a different article does not change the fact that it is not notable. Giving a not notable organization three paragraphs while the notable organization that started the ex-gay movement gets only one paragraph is giving it undue weight. If we allow the three paragraphs to stand -- or even just give it a single paragraph all its own -- we open the doors for proponents of every other non-notable self-described ex-gay ministry to add their own paragraph. I believe that we should stay focused on the movement itself and not irrelevant components: let it be mentioned in the "other groups" paragraph, and leave it at that. If other such groups start clamoring for a mention, we can select only those that are notable enough to have Wiki articles and exclude OneByOne and other non-notable organizations from that paragraph. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

While WP:NOTABILITY is not a guideline for inclusion of material in an article, I think WP:BALASPS very much applies. Inclusion of extensive material about a group that shows no sign of having significant impact on the subject would seem at odds with that guideline. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability doesn't limit content within articlees per se, but the same guidelines that help us determine notability also help us determine due weight. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the claim of consensus even in the AfD being dubious, it was based on false information. An editor claimed that that article had spun out of this one. That article was started in March of 2007. For all of that month, this article was a redirect. Before being switched to a redirect, this article had no reference to OneByOne in it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1) If this was NOT one of the organizations spun out of this article in the past, I apologize for so mishcharacterizing it. Still, that does not override AfD consensus, as determined by an impartial administrator, which was to merge the content. If you want to argue that, you can talk to the closing admin or go to DRV. Likewise, characterizing the AfD outcome as deleting the content for lack of notability is an inaccurate characterization: the outcome was 'merge' not 'delete', and anything which has the de facto effect of deleting the to-be-merged material without an appropriate discussion is disruptive editing.

2) The deletion is only one way to meet WP:DUE, and of the possible ways, the most disruptive to our consensus process. The two alternatives would have been to a) add more sourced content about other Ex-gay movement organizations, or b) do an appropriate trim job, rather than a reduction from multiple paragraphs to one sentence. There's no hard and fast rule on that, but I'd say anything more than a 50% reduction would require a consensus discussion.

3) The big deal here was Roscelese's misconduct in both voting to delete the material, and then deleting it himself in defiance of the AfD outcome, which I notified him about here. I wouldn't normally feel compelled to bring this up, but that editor has chosen to both delete the warning from his talk page and participate in the discussion above without disclosing his misconduct. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The content was merged, and now it is subject to consensus editing just like any other content in the article. You appear to be the only editor who objects to trimming it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please retract your personal attack. At least one IP editor has disputed the trimming here, and for you to insinuate that I am editing while logged out to obfuscate consensus is entirely inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

They can join the discussion like anyone else. I don't consider a drive-by edit while there's a discussion going on to be a participating editor. Calm down and stick to the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened in the AfD, we have to ask whether there is consensus among editors at this article to include that content. It doesn't appear that any such consensus exists (I agree with the other editors who have removed the material). NB Jclemens, Roscelese is a her, not a him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Jclemens's numbered items:

1. WP:Consensus can change. We are having a discussion here, and with four of the five participating editors in this discussion calling for removal of the material, it's pretty clear how this consensus is going.
2. WP:DUE in no way applies to this material, as that guideline is discussing inclusion of minority viewpoints. OneByOne is not a viewpoint, and the viewpoint that they espouse seems to be basically the one covered in the article.
3. Discussion of another user's handling of his talk page is not appropriate to this talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It took Roscelese (split, not hung) all of 12 minutes to do her de facto deletion of the OneByOne material after Thargor merged it here, per AfD. Why waste everybody's time discussing it? Right, Roscelese? Just delete it if you don't like it. Sort of reminds me of her unilateral deletion of Virginia Society for Human Life back on 23 July. Her behavior in both cases is misconduct of a high-handed sort. I am not Jclemens, and I agree with everything he has said here (he knows more about it than you do). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) (Please feel free to call me Mr. IP—I'm hung, not split.)

Oh, it's just my latest harasser again. That makes things so much more clear. Hi there! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I was asked if I wanted to comment. There's nothing within the merging guidelines that says everything has to be kept. Moving it all over first and then agreeing the right amount for the receiving article seems the most sensible way to approach this. Someone above commented that as part of the AfD there was comment that OneByOne had come out of this and should go back. Whether that was true or not was not relevant to my decision; there's no reason that a merge should only come from a split, so that is neither here nor there. If you want my personal view, a quick line or mention, such as it it as the moment seems reasonable, but I'm not an expert on the subject, just a casual reader. GedUK  12:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Added paragraph

Recently, a user added the following paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay_movement&diff=prev&oldid=608750153

The ex-gay movement is dead. Every major national and international ex-gay ministry with 4 decades of experience has shut down or become gay-affirming. The claim that a person chooses his sexual orientation is disputed by science, medical associations and even the major ex-gay leaders in the final years of the ex-gay movement. "99.9%" of Christians seeking sexual orientation did not experience a change from homosexual to heterosexual" explained Alan Chambers, long-time president of the only worldwide ex-gay ministry, Exodus International, in January, 2012 at the Gay Christian Network conference (search "Exodus admits gays can't change). John Smid, long-time executive director of the original ex-gay ministry founded in 1973, Love in Action, confirmed this, stating on his blog, "I have never met a man who changed from homosexual to heterosexual." Both Chambers and Smid include themselves in this assessment though Chambers chose to stay wed to a woman while Smid has ended his marriage and moved in with a man. Love in Action and Exodus International no longer exist. Other ex-gay ministries have shut down since 2012, most notably Evergreen International, which was the largest and oldest Mormon-affiliated ex-gay ministry. Evergreen and Love in Action each gave their membership lists to new, small organizations hoping to restart the ex-gay ministries using the same claims and techniques that had been used in the past.

This was quickly reverted as unsourced. I'd like to know if there is any baby in this bathwater (if there is any information worth salvaging here.

Here are each of the assertions:

• The ex-gay movement is dead.
• Every major national and international ex-gay ministry with 4 decades of experience has shut down or become gay-affirming.
• The claim that a person chooses his sexual orientation is disputed by science, medical associations and even the major ex-gay leaders in the final years of the ex-gay movement.
• "99.9%" of Christians seeking sexual orientation did not experience a change from homosexual to heterosexual" explained Alan Chambers, long-time president of the only worldwide ex-gay ministry, Exodus International, in January, 2012 at the Gay Christian Network conference (search "Exodus admits gays can't change).
• John Smid, long-time executive director of the original ex-gay ministry founded in 1973, Love in Action, confirmed this, stating on his blog, "I have never met a man who changed from homosexual to heterosexual."
• Both Chambers and Smid include themselves in this assessment though Chambers chose to stay wed to a woman while Smid has ended his marriage and moved in with a man.
• Love in Action and Exodus International no longer exist.
• Other ex-gay ministries have shut down since 2012, most notably Evergreen International, which was the largest and oldest Mormon-affiliated ex-gay ministry.
• Evergreen and Love in Action each gave their membership lists to new, small organizations hoping to restart the ex-gay ministries using the same claims and techniques that had been used in the past.

I would like to invite the editors to verify and source these assertions and add them to the article if appropriate. Just Tidying Up (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ex-ex-gay merge proposal.

So It seems like there was support over there to merge. What does everyone here think?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is its own movement, certainly a person who has left that movement is not still part of the movement. Indeed these "ex-ex-gays" often speak out against the ex-gay movement. Just Tidying Up (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that it isn't most efficiently covered within this article, as a reaction to this movement. It doesn't exist separate from this, and neither article is long enough that it requires full article space to itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mental health issue

An editor is repeatedly trying to insert a claim regarding mental health and LGBT individuals which is unsourced, much less reaching our level for reliable sources on medical issues. Please do not reinsert without appropriate source... and even then, the material is of dubious relevancy to this article. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ex-gay movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628162102/http://www.exodus.to:80/content/view/43/87/ to http://exodus.to/content/view/43/87/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060618012841/http://peoplecanchange.com:80/WhatWeMean.htm to http://www.peoplecanchange.com/WhatWeMean.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on conversion therapy

Cutterx2202 is trying to insert the following into the body of the article. The direct citations within this section are

1. [2]
2. [3]

The subarticle tied to this part of the lede is Sexual orientation change efforts

Right now every citation supports that there is "A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment" rather than "there is an ongoing research effort that tries to show that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible..."

As per wikipedia's varifiability principle that we must accurately reflect the reliable sources, the proposed change introduces an expression of doubt when there isn't any doubt in the citations or scientific community. The idea that homosexuality is somehow not normal mental health has been a fringe argument since the 1970's. I have therefore reverted the change.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) I have also removed the "citation needed" label that they added to the lede in accordance to wikipedia's lede citation policies. The section that Cutterx2202 is asking for citations accurately reflects well referenced claims within the body of the article so no additional citations in the lede are necessary according to wikipedia's lede policies.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In reference to the requesting citation - yes, they are included later in the article, which is the wrong place for them. The first instance they are used, especially here where it is a bold claim, is where they should be cited. I'm not doubting the validity of the citation, only that by placing them later, it is making it appear as if the claim does not need cited, but it does.

In reference to the slight wording change - the original wording is ambiguous ("Because of this") because of what? Is it referencing the "scientific consensus", which there is not, and cannot be on such a topic where there is still hot debate on it's origins? Is it referencing the content of research that's been done? It's ambiguous. My wording was not changing the meaning, nor the strength of the research, and wasn't even debating the particular research, just taking away the ambiguousness, and giving it a more accurate, unbiased representation of the current state of affairs. The insistence that "scientific consensus" remain also gives it a biased tinge because of the dubious nature of the statement. Let the raw amount and content of the research speak for itself; no need for projection.

Also, please don't make up arguments ("The idea that homosexuality is somehow not normal mental health has been a fringe argument since the 1970's."). Considering the scientific issue itself is still unsettled, and hotly debated even among scientists, and to a greater extent the public at large, that statement has no place.Cutterx2202 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is completely off-base. The fact that we're not yet entirely sure what causes homosexuality does not translate to any kind of medical or scientific uncertainty about whether or not it is harmful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

please provide reliable sources which show that "the scientific issue itself is still unsettled, and hotly debated even among scientists" to back up your claim, and please pay attention to what a reliable source is before you start posting articles that we simply cannot use. Right now the sources themselves state that there is a scientific consensus, the APA states that there is a scientific consensus, and that argument appears to be a fringe argument. Take note of wikipedia's due weight policy, even if you do find sources you will need to show that they are somehow equally represented in the scientific literature before we can give them equal time in the article. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

as for the citation in the beginning of the article, according to wikipedia's lede rules a citation in the lede is not needed provided that it is represented by cited sources in the body of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

as a side note, I didn't make up the argument that "the idea that homosexuality is somehow not normal mental health has been a fringe argument since the 1970's." The year was actually 1975, and it was the year that the APA actively sought to break the stigma on Homosexuality and classified it as normal mental health. [4]. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been zero evidence linking to direct genetics (DNA). In fact, through the twin study, it made clear it very likely is not linked to DNA. It is still a hot & debated field of research in science, especially in the newly created field of epigenetics (the field created almost entirely due to this topic). If it were not a hot topic in science, there would be little to no research. Your APA reasoning shows directly the opposite of what you think it does - it shows a biased entity trying to influence others, and you even stated it as such. Stating that there is a consensus does not make it so, and is often dubiously trying to stifle valid discourse. Evidence that it is a hot topic in the public is readily available in referendum votes, what makes the news (Kim Davis), and one would simply be lying to say it's not a debated public topic. There is no consensus yet, scientifically or publicly.Cutterx2202 (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The APA is a credible source for their statement "Despite the general consensus of major medical, health and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public.". We can't substitute original research for verifiable content from reliable sources.- MrX 00:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis is not a scientist nor a medical professional. We don't look to her as a source for such knowledge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the contributer making the statement that there IS a consensus, so instead of taking away the unsourced claim that there's a consensus, I will mark it as citation needed since there has yet to be one.Cutterx2202 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ex-gay movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811131953/http://www.narth.com/docs/soctribute.html to http://www.narth.com/docs/soctribute.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010931/http://exodus.to/content/view/34/117/ to http://exodus.to/content/view/34/117/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ex-gay movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504130831/http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=1 to http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803174911/http://www.narth.com/menus/officers.html to http://www.narth.com/menus/officers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116003328/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf to http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)