Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Creation of the page

There has been discussion to resurrect this page. See Talk:Conversion_therapy#Sexual_Orientation_Change_Efforts. I have started a work page to work on this. /Dumping Ground Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The page does not need "resurrection." It never was an article in its own right; it was always a redirect, and in my view it should stay that way for the moment. If you have to work on an article that covers all change methods, please start a new one; don't use this page for that purpose. BG 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It will continue being a redirect for the time being. When we are done with the work page, if you still don't want us to use this page as the main page that covers all change methods, feel free to suggest another page. This is the only page that has been suggested so far. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should continue being a redirect until such time as "Sexual orientation change efforts" has become the standard terminology. It should be possible to find a different title for your proposed article. BG 01:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to go ahead with using Sexual orientation change efforts, as that seems to be the best suggestion so far, and no one has brought up any reason not to use it. If we find a better name, we can move the article at that time. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not do this. "Sexual orientation change efforts" is a brand-new piece of terminology. There is only one APA report and a handful references in the media that deal with it. The material specifically on this term is so limited that it would not provide enough help to determine what would be appropriate material for an article. It would be appropriate to have an article of this title only if it were standard terminology, and so far it simply isn't. BG 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been consensus that there needs to be a place for methods that are too general to be considered conversion therapy and too specific to discuss about homosexuality and psychology. I don't really care what terminology is used, as long as this material gets presented. SOCE has 104,000 hits on google. [1] I am open to alternative suggestions, and am willing to move the page over to another other terminology you might suggest. Are you contesting the content or the name? If you are contesting the name, do you have another suggestion? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of such a consensus either here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you think a consensus exists, then it's up to you to prove its existence, with reference to WP:CONSENSUS, rather than to personal impressions of what a consensus is. The number of hits that SOCE has on Google doesn't show that it's the standard term in academic literature, which is what matters. The article you propose is a big mistake just on the basis of the name alone, and the content also looks very questionable. BG 22:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have any concerns, please feel free to bring it up. Just saying it is a big mistake or that the content looks questionable doesn't help. The article is well referenced. Reliable source do refer to it as SOCE, both in academia and the media. There is also a need for it, since there is no other place to put these methods. Please bring up any concerns that you might have, and I will try to incorporate them into the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving you my concerns right now. You've claimed without evidence that there is a consensus for your new article. You've provided no argument in support of your view that a brand-new and not yet standard term should be used as the name for the article. There's only one academic reliable source that refers to "SOCE", not multiple sources, as you wrongly claim. The existence of that one source cannot provide a basis for settling the disputes over article content that will inevitably arise. I'm opposed to what you have proposed. BG 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable sources in the media that refer to sexual orientation change efforts, and here are some academic sources that refer to sexual orientation change efforts. [2][3] This article is not about a term. It is about a concept. It is not like LGBT rights by country or territory is a "term". It is a concept. The concept certainly exists, and many people talk about it, whether they say SOCE, or efforts to change sexual orientation or what have you. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well then, there is one source predating the new APA report that uses the term. This doesn't show it is the standard terminology, and it's hardly appropriate to start an article with this title. It should remain a redirect for the forseeable future. BG 05:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the right way forward. Thanks for your work JJ. Hyper3 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My objections to that content start with the first sentence: eg, that SOCE "are behavioral techniques, psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, religious and spiritual approaches to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual". That is not what the source says, which is that SOCE are "methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation (e.g., behavioral techniques, psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, religious and spiritual approaches) to heterosexual, regardless of whether mental health professionals or lay individuals (including religious professionals, religious leaders, social groups, and other lay networks, such as self-help groups) are involved." The report is obviously giving that list of methods only as a partial indication of different forms of SOCE - it's not meant to be comprehensive, so giving it as a definition misrepresents what the APA is saying. Saying that SOCE are "methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation" would be better, and would represent the APA accurately. BG 20:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

More objections: the history section does not seem to be fully sourced, and some of the statements made there seem questionable. It is also poorly organized. The conversion therapy section contains several claims that are misleading or downright wrong. It gives Haldeman listing the methods of conversion therapy as including "fantasy modification, sex therapy"; in fact, Haldeman does not discuss "fantasy modification" as a separate method, simply as one technique of sex therapy. I attempted to explain this to Joshuajohanson on talk:conversion therapy; he simply ignored me, maybe not really understanding the point. That section also states that "today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex" - that is sourced to Mark Yarhouse and Warren Throckmorton, neither of whom considers himself a conversion therapist, so while the statement itself may be correct, it is sourced completely wrongly. BG 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

More objections: the section on Aesthetic Realism is based partly on a self-published website, a questionable source. The section on professional guidelines is a badly-organized jumble, and includes much material that isn't really relevant. The political debate section seems to include an unreasonable amount of borderline trivia, and doesn't seem altogether well sourced either. Sorry, but I don't think a worthwhile article can be made out of this stuff. BG 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel some of BG's efforts here are constructive, and without the constraint of a very narrow definition of the page, there is much hope for something useful.Hyper3 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Without the constraint of a very narrow definition of the page, there is likely to be an article that will be filled with minor and esoteric details and can never be made NPOV. By the way, if you aren't going to reply to my criticisms of your views on article content over at talk:conversion therapy, I'm simply going to ignore you and make some of the changes I've proposed. BG 21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to take into account many of your arguments, BG, but many of them are very vague. What part of the political debate section is borderline trivia and unsupported? What part of the history is dubious? I, myself, am unfamiliar with the history of SOCE. I took what was written by other people other places on wiki. I know that wiki is not a source, but if you could enlighten me what exactly the problems are I will work on it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What part of political debate is borderline trivia? Nearly all of it. It reads like a disjointed collection of facts and opinions chosen at random. Why is everything there presented as isolated chunks of information, rather than an overall summary or explanation of the issue? Who is Randy Thomas that his opinion on this issue is of such key importance? Wouldn't there be plenty of other people who could be quoted as well as, or instead of, him? The source used looks dubious, and doesn't work either (dead link). BG 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a lot of the issues that BG has brought up. Obviously this article is still not FA quality, but I do think it is at least at start level quality. Almost everything is referenced and it covers major points. There will still be work to do after I push this live, but I think it is good enough to push live right now. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge you not to do this. I think the APA has implied somewhere that conversion therapy = SOCE; I'm looking for the source. If they have, then making Sexual orientation change efforts into an article with a different focus is absolutely wrong. If I find the source, and you still insist on turning this into an article on all change efforts, I will revert you and return this page to a redirect. BG talk 23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. Conversion therapy is a type of therapy, whereas SOCE includes all efforts, whether therapy or not, but I can wait to see what direction the argument goes at the conversion therapy article. If it turn out that CT does indeed includes all efforts to change sexual orientation, this page can still be used to fill in the gaps at the CT page, but like I said, I highly doubt that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is here [4]. It implies that reparative therapy = SOCE. There's no justification for turning this redirect into an article. Incidentally, even give that reparative/conversion therapy does = SOCE, I still find it questionable that your dumping ground is an appropriate source for the conversion therapy article. BG talk 23:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

BG can't have it both ways. Either loads of stuff that is not strictly labelled conversion therapy technically, yet is about change efforts generally, is relevant to the Conversion Therapy page, and must be included there, or it needs to be found here. Which is it? I think we should go on with this JJ - its a lot of good work that shouldn't go to waste. Hyper3 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That the APA has implied that reparative therapy (and hence, presumably, conversion therapy as well, although they don't spell that out) is the same thing as SOCE does mean that Sexual orientation change efforts cannot be turned into an article, but it in no way implies that anything related to changing homosexuality should be included in the conversion therapy article. While it is true that any change method can be considered SOCE, and while it is plausible that SOCE and conversion therapy are the same thing, if there's no explicit statement that a given change method is conversion therapy, it still doesn't belong in an article with that title. BG talk 22:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what you just said. (I'm not that clear either some times, so don't take it wrong). If SOCE=CT then stop removing things that don't mention CT explicitly, but are still change efforts from the CT article. If SOCE≠CT then lets have a different article. Which is it? Hyper3 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you don't understand my point. That doesn't mean I don't have a point. The point, to put it simply, is that whatever the content issue, we need to err on the side of caution. If there appears to be a good reason for keeping content out, then keep it out until the problem can be resolved. If it is left ambiguous whether something is conversion therapy, then it shouldn't be in the conversion therapy article. If it is plausible that SOCE might be conversion therapy, then SOCE and Sexual orientation change efforts should not be turned into articles. I'm trying to be completely consistent - the point in both cases is to keep dubious content out. BG talk 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP could use some balance in the debate over homosexuality and the validity of SOCE. There are plenty of people who view the APA as a biased, politicized activist group. It's no surprise they oppose conversion therapy, but even they will not go so far as to say that it is harmful in every case. Individual CT success stories such as Randy Thomas are critical data points that activists would clearly prefer to marginalize or ignore. This article is adequately sourced and the tone is neutral. I support JJ's points in this discussion. Keep the page.Flee67 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)flee67

Tone

This article practically promotes sexual orientation change. Many, many organizations (see below to a future comment) cite that it is 1. psychologically damaging and 2. do not work. The tone is inappropriate. tommy talk 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a section on the effects of SOCE, which discusses both whether it works and whether it is harmful. It says that "[t]he potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior." I have edited it to make it more clear that the consensus is that it is potentially harmful, but I have not seen any medical organization say that it is harmful for sure. They just discuss potential for harm. Could you find somewhere where they say it is harmful for sure? The most recent report by the APA says that no casual relationship has been determined to tell whether the reported harms were caused by SOCE or some other factor. As far as saying they don't work, the most recent report says there is no evidence whether or not they work. We need to stick with what is actually said. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you about the tone, but the fact is that the subject does exist, it is a favorite topic among a certain group of activists and, so, it is notable. It looks like the article is being extracted and compiled from a number of other articles by editors I trust to be non point of view, so let's give them a chance to finish it. I'm sure those editors would value your input on how to improve the article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, the "consensus" about SOCE so far really only consists of one report. Earlier reports didn't talk about "SOCE" at all, they talked about conversion therapy. Here you seem to have mixed sources that talk about conversion therapy with sources that talk about SOCE on the POV assumption that they are the same thing. It's without justification. All you've created is a big POV pile of synth. BG talk 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to specifically use the term "Sexual orientation change efforts." For example, the first quote in the Effects of SOCE refers to "interventions intended to change [sexual orientaiton]". The statement by the American Academy Of Paediatrics talks about "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation". The 1997 APA report refers to "therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation." The WHO definition refers to "treatment in order to change [sexual orientation]". All of these reports discuss efforts to change sexual orientation, but not conversion or reparative therapy. They belong more on this page than the page on CT. Besides, CT is a therapy that attempts to change sexual orientation, so it still falls under SOCE. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a few months ago there was a big report on the mainstream media that showed that any type of sexual orientation change does not work; and if it does it's rare. Furthermore, the study also found that it any type of S.O. change may in fact be psychologically traumatizing. ... 1. APA statement against homosexual discrimination AND against those who claim it is a disease or so here: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/discrimination.html

2. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/ This year a study studied the effects of 87 sexual orientation programs from the 60s- 2007. tommy talk 15:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

3. I've been 'gay' since I was literally 3 years old. I know WP isnt about personal stories but I can attest to the fact that if any program tried to change who I was since I was literally walking, that would be psychologically traumatizing. It's not complicated. But this isn't even about me, it's about the fact that 1. it's not a disease so therefore no "cure" is needed, 2. homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a natural expression of feeling. IF the science actually said that homosexuality was a disease that leads to violence and thus needs to be cured OR can easily be changed with the majority of gays saying that they want to be heterosexual, I wouldn't care. But this isn't the case. The fact is many gays like who they are and see treatment as an insult. tommy talk 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you have an egosyntonic sexual orientation. Even the strongest advocates for SOCE warn that it is harmful for people with an egosyntonic sexual orientation. Is there anything in this article that makes it sound like it is advisable to attempt change the sexual orientation of people who don't want it? I completely agree that for someone like you, SOCE is harmful and ill-advised. I agree that the APA is against homosexual discrimination, but I do not understand how helping homosexual people achieve their own goals is considered discrimination. The CNN article you reference refers to a 138-page report. This 138 page report says "given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective."[5] It is standard to give preference to original sources, rather than secondary sources. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, just because it is normal doesn't mean it doesn't change. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime." Having brown hair is completely normal and is a natural variant of human hair color. People with brown hair are not inferior to other colors, but yet salons around the world offer services to people with brown hair who want to change their hair color to blonde. Are these salons hateful of people with brown hair? Should they be closed down for discriminating people with brown hair? What about my brother, who was born blonde, but his hair turned brown when he was a teenager. Are you going to accuse him of lying about his hair color just because your hair color hasn't changed? Just because your sexual orientation is relatively fixed, doesn't mean everyone else's is. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it just sounds like I'm a male who happens to have always been attracted to other men and then I just form opinions about idiots (not you, people in general) who say it's unnatural. And I have to be arrogant because if I'm not others push me around to be one thing or the other when I want to be ME, and no one else. That might be hard to understand but bare with me. Second, being blonde also has negative connotations (as being klutzy) and third, no one is ever psychologically traumatized for trying to change their hair color so your argument is not sensible. Now, while I agree that some gays, who feel pressured from religions and society to then want to change their sexuality (only as a result of pressure by the way) then want to do it. The fact is, throughout history homosexuality has been around and many civilizations have in the past pride themselves in their homosexuality (including China and Japan). For example, the warriors in Ancient Greece boasted that homosexuality made them fight harder. People who are gay are usually born that way (probably not always, but usually) and thus should not want to change it. But of course, if they "believe" god wants them to, then of course they think they have to... and then they get in psychological troubles leading to suicide, drug use... you get the picture. See what I'm saying? THEY don't necessarily want or need to change it (on their own), but they THINK (and unfortunately too often believe) that they have to. And lastly, that CNN article .... the first sentence says

“ The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective. ”

So they actually did form a conclusion against SOCE. tommy talk 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What part in the article suggests otherwise? Nothing in the section suggests any evidence that it can be changed, and it ends up by saying "The Royal College of Psychiatrists and United States Surgeon General David Satcher and American Psychological Associations have all concluded that there is insufficient evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." To me there is perfect agreement between the CNN report that "there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective" and the articles summary that "there is insufficient evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." In addition to that, they also said "we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective." I don't see a contradiction. Also, this article does say that "Medical organizations view homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality", so I don't see how your argument about how homosexuality has always been around conflicts with what this article says. Can you provide the sentence in the article that you disagree with, and then a reference which says that it is not the case? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this article mainly talks about ways of treatment and then has a half-assed controversy section that belittles the extent of the damage. There is NO debate on whether it "might" be harmful or "potentially" harmful... or "maybe" harmful... it IS harmful, found over and over and over and over again and homosexuals who desire to change it are weak. There is no debate whatsoever in this topic. I have to ask... if people are born a certain way, why do people want to change it? lol... I mean really... you're born a certain way.. but God apparently doesnt like it? haha that sounds so stupid. tommy talk 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your personal prejudice against people who seek to change their sexual orientation has no place in Wikipedia. I don't care how dumb, or weak, or disillusioned you think they are. Wikipedia is not a place for bigotry and discrimination. Mainstream medical organizations say it is potentially harmful. We can only report what they say. If you can find something that says it is harmful, we can include that, but that doesn't negate what these organizations have said. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, and they say that it IS harmful. What bigotry is there? I don't know what you tell yourself, that CNN article clearly says they ( theAPA etc, every major psychological association; nothing major) are all against it, show me one source where they say it is not harmful. You won't find one! There is no debate! It IS harmful! tommy talk 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I read that APA source that you (I think) use repeatedly in that "benefits and harms" section and they basically say there is no conclusive evidence because of the poor manner in which the "therapy" is performed. They also say that any organization that says homosexuality is a disease and needs to be cured should be avoided... I don't understand how you interpret that is it being both "beneficial" or "potentially" harmful... They're basically saying "be careful" in a nutshell, but are just short of discouraging it. tommy talk 21:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not every major medical organization have made comments against it. For example, WHO does allow treatment to change the sexual orientation of people with ego-dystonic sexual orientation. (F66.1) However, you are right, many of them are against it. The article does say "Mainstream health organizations critical of attempts to change sexual orientation include the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association." The stuff you argue for is already in the article. I agree that they say it is potentially harmful or that it can cause harm, but I have looked and I cannot find anywhere where it says it does cause harm. A report by the APA task force said that "Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE, just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it."[6] If the APA task force couldn't find any valid evidence that the reported harms were caused by SOCE, why do you think this article should state that it is harmful? Do you know something the APA task force doesn't know? We can only report what they said. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said you will not find a source that says SOCE is not harmful. They ALL either say: It "may" (and they're only saying "may" because they can't actually prove it to be harmful 100% of the time, even though they probably already think it is mostly harmful) be harmful or caution against its use. tommy talk 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not ALL (like I said WHO hasn't) but MOST. Isn't this what the article currently says? It just seems like you are arguing for something that is already in the article. Is there something you would like to add or take out? I guess I don't understand what you want changed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just think it could be written better and thus more accurately portray any type of SOCE. My problem is that it equally portrays the 'benefits' (which are nonexistent and strictly perceived by the person) with the harms. The harms should be more stressed because they do outweigh any 'benefits'. That's not personal, thats just fact. Doesn't it just make sense that if a gay person has a hard time accepting themselves they should try to go to therapy to accept themselves as opposed to learning how to (essentially) hate themselves? tommy talk 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a section on alternative methods, and talk about what medical organizations suggest to do instead. That way, we could talk about therapies that worked to help the client find a way to bring their sexual orientation in harmony with the rest of their life, rather than change the sexual orientation. Would that help bring balance? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is awful

OK, let's be blunt. This article is no good. It's a collection of scraps and left-overs from Conversion therapy, and it doesn't add up to anything coherent. It doesn't look as though it has been edited very carefully, and its purpose looks suspiciously like circumventing the reliable sourcing and due weight policies. "Sexual orientation change efforts" would be a better subject for a dictionary entry than for an encyclopedia article. BG talk 01:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts is a concept, not a term. It doesn't belong in a dictionary. It is a title that is meant to be inclusive of all efforts to change sexual orientation. As far as the article being "no good", this article was just barely created. It isn't like I am proposing it go to feature status. Let's work together on fixing it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a concept that is about as effective as an exorcism or praying. tommy talk 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does nothing in the first paragraph of the History section appear to be sourced properly? I would have thought all those claims required sources, but there is nothing there. Did Krafft-Ebing say he was doing SOCE, and has any reliable source used that term to describe his work? In the Methods section, what is the logic to the way the sections are ordered? Why aren't they in alphabetical order? The Behavior modification section implies that behavior modification and aversion therapy are the same thing, which is incorrect - aversion therapy is only one type of behavior modification. Why so much detail about a method so minor and obscure as Syntonic therapy? The "Coaches" section states, "Coaches do not have to have a medical license, and only "coach" participants in their work to change sexual orientation." What is the source for that? BG talk 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the history, nor about ST. This is Wikipedia. If you feel like it is in error, feel free to change it. I do not think I need to source that says it was defined as SOCE. All that is needed is a source that says he was trying to change sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sections "Effects of SOCE" and "Position of professional organizations on SOCE" both appear to be written from the perspective that Conversion therapy and SOCE are the same thing, an unjustifiable claim, and a very POV way to write an article. Unless these sections are specifically based on sources that use the term Sexual orientation change efforts, they're without justification. I think only one of the sources there (the new APA report) uses the term SOCE; the rest so far as I know don't. Using sources that are talking about what may be different things, while implying that they are all talking about the same thing, is an absolutely dreadful way to write an article. I would be in favor of wiping everything in those sections. BG talk 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary BG, using a wide range of definitions in a disputed area is the only way to write an article. Your POV that we shouldn't is well documented elsewhere, but currently you have no support for that claim. Where there are a range of meanings extending from multiple terms, an encyclopedia must still attempt to offer a contribution. Hyper3 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources used to write the effects of SOCE refered to conversion therapy, and only The Royal College of Psychiatrists refers to reparative therapy together with psychotherapy that "attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation". Why do you say that it confuses conversion therapy and SOCE? They don't even talk about conversion therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation change efforts" would be more appropriate to a dictionary because, so far as I know, there are few sources that specifically use this term. Basically, the only source you have is the new APA report, so if this page were to be an article instead of a redirect, all it should be doing is summarising that report. The absence of sources specifically calling Krafft-Ebing's work (for example) SOCE means that there is no way to settle disputes over how that should be described or presented. Thus, I doubt the article can be improved in any meaningful way. BG talk 21:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't about a specific term. It is about efforts to change sexual orientation, regardless of what term they use. For example, none of the references in the article Legal aspects of transsexualism use that exact term. All it does is define a concept. Sexual orientation change efforts more closely includes therapy that "attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation" than the article conversion therapy does. Any effort to change sexual orientation can be included on this page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SOCE

Even though Sexual orientation change efforts is now an article in its own right, SOCE still redirects to Conversion therapy. As I've said, I don't believe that this should be an article to itself, but so long as it is, SOCE should redirect to this page, not to Conversion therapy. Someone might want to fix it. BG talk 07:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree... Although, I'm more puzzled as to why this article exists if there is already a reparitive therapy article.... tommy talk 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all efforts to change sexual orientation can be reliably identified as reparative therapy. Some definitions of reparative therapy only include therapies based on the idea that homosexuality is caused by poor relations with the same-sex parent or same-sex peers and hence the homosexual attractions are a drive to "repair" that (hence the name reparative therapy. Other definitions of reparative include all therapies based on the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or any therapy to change sexual orientation. This page includes all efforts to change sexual orientation, regardless of whether they believe homosexuality is a mental disorder or they use therapy to change it, whereas the conversion therapy article is specific to techniques identified as conversion therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Because it's virtually the same as conversion therapy... It makes more sense to help that article than waste time with this one; it's redundant. tommy talk 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the content, there actually isn't much overlap. This article is more broad, and covers several types that aren't covered on the conversion therapy page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no there is no real difference; they're essentially the same article. They both cover methods, effects and a scientific consensus sections. If this mustn't be deleted, then merge the two because there really is no meaningful distinction. Let me put it this way: if you went around town asking people the difference between "sexual orientation change efforts" and "reparative (conversion) therapy" ... how many people could tell you the difference? There is no difference, except that the other one has a much longer history section. tommy talk 19:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I request that all deletion efforts halt until the mediation case that involves this article can be decided. On the agenda is a determination of the scope and relationships of these two articles. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 20:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion isn't the right thing to do. If Sexual orientation change efforts isn't suitable as an article, it should probably be returned to being a redirect, which is what it was before Joshuajohanson turned it into an article. But we need more time to think about the issue and discuss things. BG talk 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Take a look at this edit [7], which looks like an attempt to turn the article into a repository of popular culture-related trivia. Maybe there is a case for an article with a broader scope than Conversion therapy, but I hope this wasn't what people have in mind. Note how it deals with the reasons why a fictional character wants to change his sexual orientation as though it were part of the same subject as why real people might want to do that.BG talk 21:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Some new criticisms

I'm going to give a summary of what is wrong with this article. This includes minor issues as well as major ones.

1. In the lead, the sentence reading, "They may include behavioral techniques, psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, religious and spiritual approaches" should read, "They may include behavioral techniques, psychoanalytic techniques, medical approaches, and religious and spiritual approaches." The inclusion of an additional "and" is necessary to make the sentence grammatical. The lead is too short and does not give a proper overview of the subject.

2. The history section is no good, if its purpose is to give a proper survey of attempts at changing homosexuality since the 19th century. The sentence, "In the last two decades of the 19th century, a different view began to predominate in medical and psychiatric circles, judging such behavior as indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation" is misleading. It seems to be contrasting Krafft-Ebing's views with different views that developed later in the 19th century, but it's not clear where the difference is supposed to lie. If Krafft-Ebing felt that homosexuality was biologically based or congenital in some cases, then he probably would see it as "indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation." Krafft-Ebing was a major figure in the history of psychiatry, and if this article is meant to cover change attempts comprehensively, then there should be a full discussion of his views on that topic. I added such a discussion to the Conversion therapy article months ago, but eventually removed it [8] because it didn't seem to fit properly within the scope of the article. It should be added here if there are any editors interested in improving the history section seriously. The fact that no one has done this leaves me thinking that the level of interest required to improve this article in any serious way does not exist.

Another misleading sentence is, "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pathological models of homosexuality were standard." Actually pathological models were standard until very late in the 20th century (1973?), so it's quite wrong to suggest that they were restricted to only the early part of the 20th century.

The second of the two paragraphs in the history section is a clotted mess. It discusses earlier developments, such as the 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, after later developments; it should be the other way around. Everything from "The trustees of the American Psychiatric Association..." to "The APA now classifies persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified" should be before the sentences that start with "In 1992, the World Health Organization replaced its categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness."

The sentence, "Therapists who offer change therapy argue clients should have the right to self-determination" seems suspect to me. There is nothing in the article by Yarhouse and Throckmorton used as a source that properly justifies it. That article does contain the words, "One of the most frequently cited arguments in support of a client’s right to choose change therapy is the freedom and self-determination of the client", but it does not say that this is the argument of all or even any therapists who offer change therapy. That's an unacceptable, POV, original research interpretation of a source.

3. In the methods section, the "Behavior therapy" section compares very poorly to the "Behavioral modification" section in Conversion therapy. I'm not sure why it's given a different name, and there is much less information in it; this strengthens my impression that this article is just an inferior version of Conversion therapy, repeating much of the same material but in a less useful way. The sentence "Coaches do not have to have a medical license, and only "coach" participants in their work to change sexual orientation" in "Coaches" is potentially dangerous misinformation, and should be deleted outright. There is no logic to having a separate "Conversion therapy" section within "methods", given that the term "Conversion therapy" can be defined broadly enough to include many of the methods that are wrongly portrayed here as being separate from it. "Conversion therapy" definedly broadly is another term for methods of changing sexual orientation, not a separate method unto itself. It should be deleted. The fact that the ex-gay section starts off with the words "A task force commissioned by the APA found that ex-gay groups act like support groups, in that they help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation" looks like POV-pushing to put a positive spin on the ex-gay movement. The information is correct, yes, but why does that have to be the first thing in that section, instead of a definition of what ex-gay groups are or the extensive criticism that has been made of them? Why is none of that criticism represented in that section? It does not make sense to have a separate "Religious methods" section; it's just more information about ex-gay groups. The syntonic therapy section concerns one minor method described in one book that exerted a limited influence on later developments; it's overdue for deletion.

4. The reasons people seek to change sexual orientation section states vaguely that people may seek to change sexual orientation due to a "desire to avoid certain diseases". Why don't you remove the weasel words and tell us what diseases those are, Joshua? The "general dissatisfaction with their current lifestyle" part is ridiculous and insulting, since it suggests that someone's entire "lifestyle" consists of their homosexual behavior and nothing else (and also that homosexuality itself is a "lifestyle"). It is extremely POV, and again makes the reasons for the creation of this article seem suspect.

That's all that I can think of to say for now. I'm going to state my remaining criticisms in a separate post.

BG talk 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this list of concerns. I'm gone for the weekend, but I will address them when I come back. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Further criticisms

In the "Effects of SOCE" section, the statement that 'The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state that "Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as 'reparative therapy'”' does not seem to have a source. The reference to reparative therapy is a little confusing and perhaps unnecessary given that the main term used in this article is SOCE.

The sentence "The American Psychiatric Association has stated that 'anecdotal reports of 'cures' are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm' is sourced to a document that uses the terms conversion therapy and reparative therapy, not SOCE. It misrepresents the source to repeat its criticisms of conversion therapy and reparative therapy as criticisms of SOCE, given that there is no clear indication that SOCE is the same thing as conversion or reparative therapy. If that sentence is to remain in the article, it should be rewritten to make it clear that the APA is talking about conversion therapy, not SOCE.

The sentence "Clients with an egosyntonic sexual orientation can feel shamed and emotionally hurt if therapists attempted to change their sexual orientation" is similarly problematic, because it is made to look like a statement about SOCE, when in fact the source appears to be concerned with conversion therapy.

The information about the World Health Organization in "Position of professional organizations on SOCE" (it should be "Positions", not "Position") seems questionable. It mentions that the WHO lists ego-dystonic organization as a disorder when, "the gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it", but how is that, or any of the other information, a position on SOCE? You are perhaps reading the WHO as saying that people have a right to seek to change their sexual orientation if they so wish, but it appears that all they are actually saying is that some people might wish to change. The next sentence, "The APA dropped ego-dystonic homosexuality from the DSM-IV in 1987 and opposes the diagnosis of either homosexuality or ego-dystonic homosexuality as any type of disorder" likewise isn't a position on SOCE at all; rather it's about whether homosexuality is a disorder or not, a related but quite distinct issue.

The article states that the American Medical Association is critical of attempts to change sexual orientation; the source used talks about reparative or conversion therapy, neither of which is necessarily a term for all attempts at changing sexual orientation.

The information about the American Academy of Physician Assistants is oddly sourced to the "Spirit India" website [9]. I'd like to see some evidence that this is a reliable source.

The "self-determination" section is very cluttered and poorly organized, containing far too much information packed together far too tightly. Too much of that information appears to have little relevance to the main subject of the article. Although located within "Position of professional organizations on SOCE", much of it is about the individual views of particular authors, not the "Position of professional organizations on SOCE"; it is therefore presented in an extremely misleading way.

It begins with statements about the American Psychological Association's code of conduct; none of that information relates specifically to SOCE and it has no place in this article. Immediately after that information is some statements from Gerald Koocher. These are improperly souced to a blog by Warren Throckmorton, which is not a reliable source. They must be removed unless a better source can be found. Even if a better source can be found, they should still probably be removed, because they have little importance in and of themselves and there's little reason why they should be in the article anyway.

The quotation from the American Counseling Association ("it is of primary importance to respect a client's autonomy to request a referral for a service not offered by a counselor") is out of context and not particularly helpful. The statement that "No one should be forced to attempt to change their sexual orientation against their will, including children being forced by their parents" is undoubtedly true, but it's mysterious why it is left floating without context in the article and is not identified as being based on the new APA report.

The statement, "Yarhouse and Throckmorton, of the private Christian school Grove City College, argue that the procedure should be available out of respect for a patient’s values system and because they find evidence that it can be effective." What procedure? Such information isn't helpful unless it can be made more clear. SOCE is in any case not a single "procedure."

The statement, "Douglas Haldeman similarly argues for a client's right to access to therapy if requested from a fully informed position" is true, but clearly only applies to conversion therapy, not to SOCE, so I'm not clear how it is supposed to belong in a section that is supposed to relate to "Self-determination" as it applies to SOCE generally, rather than only conversion therapy.

The information about Haldeman is immediately followed by this, about Jack Drescher: "In response to Yarhouse's paper, Jack Drescher argued that 'any putative ethical obligation to refer a patient for reparative therapy is outweighed by a stronger ethical obligation to keep patients away from mental health practitioners who engage in questionable clinical practices.'" Since this is about Drescher's reaction to Yarhouse, why is it placed after the information about Haldeman? Would it not rather belong after the information about Yarhouse? It suffers from the same problem as the information about Haldeman, in that it relates to conversion therapy/reparative therapy, rather than to SOCE (this is true also of all the remaining information, from the reference to Chuck Bright to the end of the paragraph).

BG talk 06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving it there for the moment, but I'm still not finished, and will have more criticisms to make soon. BG talk 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

More criticisms

The section on self-determination is followed by a section oddly titled "Disclosure", which is a poorly chosen title because it gives readers no idea what it is really about. It's also somewhat silly. The first sentence, "Medical organizations view homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality and do not allow therapists to portray homosexuality as a mental disorder or as abnormal" is true (but limited only to the situation in the United States); however, it is not clear what it has to do with the subject of "Disclosure" and is a bad way of starting the section.

The paragraph that follows is about the American Counseling Association; it makes the mistake of presenting the ACA's views on conversion therapy and reparative therapy as being about SOCE, even though there is no evidence that everything the ACA says about them applies to SOCE as well.

The next section is "International views." The information here on China is too long and detailed; much of it is entirely off the point, having little connection with the main subject of this article. The information about Italy, Germany, and Japan concerns only whether homosexuality is viewed as normal or not, and has nothing to do with attempts at changing it; as such it is irrelevant. All of it should be deleted.

The last section is "Political debate." This starts off with yet another statement ("Changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized", etc) sourced to a document about conversion therapy/reparative therapy, which is wrongly presented as being about SOCE, even though conversion therapy and reparative therapy in this case seem to be understood to mean something narrower than SOCE. It is very misleading. The statement that "Individuals who feel therapy has been helpful have felt oppressed by LGBT activists opposed to SOCE" appears to be synth or original research. The rest of the paragraph (the stuff about Randy Thomas, David Scasta, and Camille Paglia) seems like a random collection of rather trivial facts. I see no logic to singling out these three particular individuals and their views, as though they had some special importance. The statement from John Gonsiorek is concerned only with conversion therapy, and presenting it as being about SOCE is wrong. The statement from Joe Dallas appears to concern only religious methods of changing homosexuality and has no relevance to SOCE in general.

BG talk 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What should be done

This article is clearly neither helpful nor worthwhile. It presents a very misleading and distorted impression of its subject, sexual orientation change efforts. It has many problems, which I have described in the posts above; its key problem is that it repeatedly uses sources that refer to "Conversion therapy" and/or "reparative therapy" as though these terms automatically had the same meaning as "Sexual orientation change efforts", which they do not. "Conversion therapy" and "reparative" therapy frequently have a much narrower meaning than "sexual orientation change efforts", and in many cases that narrow meaning appears to be the meaning intended by the sources used. In other cases, it is at least possible that the narrower meaning is the one intended. These sources are therefore being misused in an unacceptable and POV way.

It is obvious both that this article could not hope to cover the subject of sexual orientation change efforts in a comprehensive way without using sources that refer to "conversion therapy" (since so much of the literature about change efforts does use this term) and that in using such sources it is bound to misrepresent them and mislead readers. Joshuajohanson's argument in favour of Sexual orientation change efforts being a separate article was that SOCE is a distinct concept from conversion therapy, but by using sources that refer to "conversion therapy" as though they were referring to the same thing as sexual orientation change efforts, he has undermined his own case. If this page were to remain an article instead of a redirect, then all sources refering to conversion therapy would have to be removed; but if that were done, then it would not be able to properly cover its subject. The article is not viable, and could be considered inherently POV. The only thing that can be done with it is to return it to being the redirect that it originally was; I intend to take steps to achieve this. BG talk 23:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is an effort to change sexual orientation. Therefore, sources that use the term are perfectly fine for this article. I also suggest you cease trying to criticize this article's existence until we figure out what its scope should be (or if it should exist). The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You have missed my point. SOCE is a broadly defined term that includes all attempts at changing sexual orientation. Conversion therapy only counts as that according to one definition; according to others, it would be narrower and not the same thing as SOCE. There is no justification for automatically treating them as the same, as Joshuajohanson has done. What you said in reply is not relevant and amounts to dismissing the entire issue. As for, "I also suggest you cease trying to criticize this article's existence until we figure out what its scope should be (or if it should exist)", that's a rather rude and inappropriate comment. Whether "we" decide if the article should exist or not will depend partly on my views, and the criticisms I've made. BG talk 06:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You spill much ink on the fact that this area is hard to define. Then you spill further ink on complaining when things are unclear. We get an administrator to help us and you are starting to be aggressive with him now. Its all sounding more like a tantrum then sense. We know you don't like it that this article exists, and you will do everything in your power to have it erased. By this you show that you don't really understand wikipedia - it is meant to be collaborative - you are meant to get on with other editors and not stake your claim to territory. You should try and include other people's edits in your own... On this page you show no interest except disruption and I think that it amounts to vandalism. Please stop it! Hyper3 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wordsmith is not an administrator. He's just an ordinary user with the same rights as you or me. His comments were foolish and rude, and I have no hestitation in telling him that. Your comments (especially the accusation of vandalism, made because I criticized the article) are a near-hysterical personal attack. Please see WP:NPA. BG talk 07:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You are probably right about the personal attack. Sorry. But I do think you could be more constructive. And maybe you should be careful who you call foolish and rude. Hyper3 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact about Wikipedia that people sometimes make foolish and rude comments here. If someone makes such comments, as The Wordsmith did, then I see no reason not to call them what they are. BG talk 22:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All he did was point out that if the page was considered to be superfluous (as you hope) your efforts would be wasted. Remember the whole "assume good faith" thing, that you like to remind me of? Hyper3 (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wordsmith did not say any such thing. What he did was to defend Joshuajohanson's editing in a way that showed that he did not understand the criticisms I made of it. BG talk 23:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful assumption of good faith on your part, BG. From the start, you have done nothing but attack my motives, while I have made every attempt to remain neutral. In fact, my suggestion was intended as a request for you to discuss this on the mediation page, where it was supposed to be discussed, and not spread across multiple pages. Having the same discussion in multiple venues makes things far too confusing. Your claim that my comment was "foolish and rude" is unwarranted, and I will not apologize for it. In addition, I had no idea who wrote the article, as I hadn't checked the history. What I saw was an attempt to determine the scope of the article in a place apart fromt he active mediation, where we were actually attempting to determine the scope of the article. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 02:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your inability to admit how arrogant and patronizing you were being poses a problem for any futher attempts at communication between us. However, I am not sure that it's that much of an issue, as you're more interested in griping about who was being rude or not than in discussing the article content issues. Truly a pity. BG talk 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The articles Conversion therapy and Sexual orientation change efforts seem to cover substantially the same topic, which per WP:CFORK should lead to a merger of the articles. WP:COMMONNAME indicates that the new article should carry the most recognizable title for the single topic, whichever that may be. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the scope of conversion therapy is being restricted by Born Gay, SOCE represents a wider view of all change efforts. However, were Born Gay to be removed from the equation, it might be possible. There is, of course, the issue of those sexual orientation change efforts that are not considered therapy - what page should they go on? Hyper3 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So now that the mediation has failed, will the article's information be merged to SOCE with a redirect from Conversion Therapy to the SOCE article?--Boweneer (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well now I've started with a sockpuppet case. I'm sorry if this is a bit boring for anyone who has to witness this, but I think I have uncovered evidence for Born Gay being the banned user Skoojal. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you look back you will see a very similar pattern of editing and commenting. Sigh. Hope I'm right, or I'll have to do a lot of apologising. See this and this and this.Hyper3 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad. Anyway, I'd like to help, but I hope you all don't mind if I'm coming from the "other" side of the issue.--Boweneer (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Boweneer - BG has admitted to being a sockpuppet. Perhaps we could go back the old fashioned ways of polite debate and inclusive editing? Hyper3 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Boweneer! We would love to have you help! I know you have been hesitant in helping because of all the uncivil discourse, but now I hope that we can have reasonable discourse that can include all sides. I think we all have a common goal of seeking the better good for mankind.

(unindented)Almost seems off-topic now to discuss the actual purpose of this section. There has been a lot of discussion about the scope of SOCE versus CT. I think that SOCE should discuss all efforts to change sexual orientation while conversion therapy should focus on methods that have traditionally been considered conversion therapy. Right now there is a lot of overlap, but I have hope that with the removal of a disruptive editor, we can agree on the scope and work towards making these articles the best possible. Boweneer, you mentioned wanting to make this the main article and having CT redirect over to here. I would be interesting in hearing your reasons. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw that redirect proposed. I personally see no reason why there should be two separate articles; these are all clustered together in my opinion. Simply I would like to see:

1. Historical information 2. Studies 3. Types of SOCE 4. Positive/Negative information woven into to the text, and not in a criticism section. 5. A caveat that this is a controversial topic at best, but that there are reports that some individuals find it efficacious. BUT, with information that more individuals do not find it so, and are better served with other types of therapy or what have you. Does that make sense?--Boweneer (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Once we get a grasp of scope, we can work on these issues. I'm not trying to discount your opinion, but there is a lot of work to do before we can get to that point. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons that this page was created was that there was a problem with scope of the conversion therapy article. Different sources define CT differently. I think it is obvious that BG's idea was not the correct approach, but the question remains what is the best approach. From what I can find, here are some suggestions that people have come up with:

1. Use SOCE as a parent article, and constrict CT to a narrow sense of CT
2. Merge CT into SOCE, since SOCE is more clearly defined
3. Use the broad definition of conversion therapy to include all forms of SOCE, and merge SOCE into CT

These are listed in order of my preference. With #1, I think the narrow sense should be psychiatric treatment "based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." I think that would include reparative therapy and reorientation therapy. I do see merit to #2. Boweneer pointed out that "I think sources will overlap definitions. I don't think they are discrete yet as terms, and the sources would be "stronger" grouped together as one article at this point." I do agree that the sources would be stronger grouped together, but the CT article is already 80 KB and SOCE is 45 KB. Together, that would be 125 KB, which is way too long. I think there is a lot of history and theories that are specific to CT, that would really bog down the SOCE article. Sources that overlap can be put in the SOCE article. For example, I think the main discussion on mainstream medical views should be on the SOCE page. I could see going with option #2, but something has to be done about the size. I don't like #3 because I think it is a misnomer to consider some of these approaches "therapy". For example, let's take a Christian man he does not undergo therapy, but says that Jesus Christ changed his sexual orientation. Is that a type of conversion therapy? Should conservative Christian churches be considered practitioners of conversion therapy because its adherents believe Christ changed their sexual orientation? I think that is weird. 2/0 argues that conversion therapy should be used because it is the standard term. What does everyone else think? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first idea sounds good esp. since the articles are already somewhat in that state; I guess you would just put a "Conversion Therapy" subsection in this article and then a brief description with a link to the main article. I've seen that elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Boweneer (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. The subsection is here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I *finally* took the time to read over this article. I'm sorry but all the fighting made me leery to read it. :(.

Anyway, it looks pretty even-handed to me. I guess my fellow gays might think I'm nuts saying that.

At this point, I guess I would like to poke around and come back now and then to add a topic for consideration.--Boweneer (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the history section could be spun off to be a different article? I think that plenty of people want to get to the current stuff first, and have to wade through a lot of history. Creating a different article would help this. Also it would deal with size. It could be called "history of SOCE." I like SOCE as it is a term developed to help us cut through the confusion. Hyper3 (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I think the history of CT and other SOCE are very intertwined, so it might make sense not to try to separate them. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Sexual orientation change efforts gives every impression of being a POV fork. It should be merged into Conversion therapy. The editors there can suss out what, if anything, can be useful from a larger article that can then birth a new article of some sort if the need arises. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest that we do with the methods intended to change sexual orientation that are not considered conversion therapy? Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a way to weave them in to the main article. There doesn't seem to be too much there once the content is worked down. Once you have one article you can see if a break-out article is still warranted. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Which article is the main article? Homosexuality, Homosexuality and psychology, or are you talking about conversion therapy? If anything I think conversion therapy should be moved into this article, since this article is more inclusive. Another problem is a lot of the recent statements have been directed at SOCE in general, and not necessarily at conversion therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged into Conversion therapy. That is the launching point that everything else can be tied into. If Conversion therapy shows to become an outmoded "treatment" then we have time to adjust any articles accordingly. -- Banjeboi 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't just "weave" methods that have nothing to do with CT into the CT article. There are plenty of material about methods to change sexual orientation that have never been identified as CT. Please give a suggestion as to what to do with these methods. Also, what should we do with statements towards SOCE by the APA? Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution here is to have this article be the parent article to Conversion therapy, Ex-gay, etc. All CT is SOCE, but not all SOCE is CT. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Watching your efforts to mediate, this seems like the best solution to me, and one that follows similar wikipedia article layouts. Some of these SOCE methods are just too sparse for their own article, while conversion therapy is perhaps(?) the most developed.--Boweneer (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. Hyper3 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, "Sexual orientation change efforts" seems to be a novel term to get around the baggage of "conversion therapy" which is widely disreputable. Given the propensity to inflate the importance and impact of the various methods and groups I also find this all quite dubious at best. The historical methods all would seem to go to conversion therapy which is the modern equivalent whereas "non-CT methods" that are still soce can be there and stated as such unless a neutral title can be agreed upon. This subject area has propogated across articles and injected into various places. IMHO, this smells of campaign to use Wikipedia as a platform to spread ideas of the new frontiers of conversion therapy when we should be following reliable sources rather than acting as a reporter of same. Efforts itself seems a rather WP:Weaselly way of stating anything. Ex-gay, by the way, is an identity not a change effort, some ex-gays may indeed effort to change their orientations but that is a different issue. -- Banjeboi 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Many otherwise similar terms go through a process of "de-synonymisation" which makes language richer, not poorer. Efforts to stigmatise are countered by efforts to ditch the baggage in new terms, both being normal. You rightly observe that this process is going on, but I do not think you should stigmatise the process, which in the end balances itself out. Indeed SOCE is a catch all term to pick up the distancing of terms like "reparative therapy," and comes from the camp of those who oppose efforts to change sexuality. I approve of its use because of its neutrality; more narrow definitions create non-neutral environments in both directions. Hyper3 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There indeed may be a need for a catch-all phrase but we should not be leading the effort to create it - we follow, not lead. Let's first determine that this list is the best way to go - I'm not convinced either way - and also figure out the best and most neutral way to present it. I feel the current title misses the mark and sets us up for coining a new phrase which we certainly should avoid ... as the world's encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe they should be merged, it's relatively the same exact thing. Therapy is a vague term anyway, and there could be good and, in the case of SOCE/Gay therapy, the bad. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I'd like to start reviewing sources, and this book came up a few times on a search of "sexual orientation change" in Google Scholar. EX-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study And Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics And Culture by Jack Drescher, MD, Kenneth J. Zucker, PhD. It's pricey, so I'll first try to find it at the library. Does anyone have thoughts or concerns about this text?--Boweneer (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. There are some things that contradict other sources, but I think it would be valuable to explore those contradictions. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but contradiction is the spice of life. LOL. I think I can get it through the University of Utah library. To outright buy it is out of my budget at this time. Can you tell me what is contradictory about this book? I'm guessing it is going to come down more on the side of "SOCE doesn't work/rarely works/causes harm", but who knows until I read it.--Boweneer (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading it and really like it. It has views from all sides of the spectrum (that is why it is contradictory) From those violently against it, to those who support it, to the middle ground. I think it is a great source. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So you have a copy of this text or are you just looking at the available sections on Google Book? If you have already incorporated information from this book in the articles, is it a waste of time? There are plenty of other books/articles to cover, I'm sure.--Boweneer (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the available sections on Google Book. No, its not a waste of time. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then I'm going to review it.--Boweneer (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've gone ahead and purchased the book. It is not too expensive on Amazon as a used paperback, and I have no way to check out the book at the University of Utah. I'm glad that *most* of the text is available on Google Books so we will be able to discuss the topics.--Boweneer (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

Joshua, somehow my 2nd comment to the homophobia section on Conversion Therapy didn't take. In any case, since homophobia is such a loaded term, what sources would be acceptable to mark a particular therapy or technique as homophobic? I guess I feel that the term is overused, but if it applies ... --Boweneer (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The homophobia page defines it as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I guess the problem is what defines "irrational". While conversion therapists may differ from the mainstream opinion, I don't think they can be classified as irrational. They are still being published in mainstream medical journals and so forth. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they are irrational. Another issue is whether it constitutes fear of, aversion to, or discrimination. Personally, I don't think helping gay people live a lifestyle that they want can be classified as discrimination against them. I do think forcing people to undergo SOCE against their will is a form of discrimination. However, I don't think a tool used by some people to help gay people and by other people to harm them should be classified as discrimination. By that logic you would classify protests as homophobia because some people use protests to attack gay people. I think overwhelmingly, SOCE today are only used to help people who request it. I think in order to be classified as homophobia, it needs to be identified as homophobic by a reliable source. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is actually pretty close to my position too -- I've become increasingly uncomfortable at how easily the label is applied. I think it dilutes the term. In any case, what I linked to in the missing post was a statement by the NASW clearly calling conversion therapy homophobia. The statement is here on the organization's website: [10] Scroll down to the section: How can I practice the nondiscrimination tenets of my profession? This statement however is from 2000. So, I think in addition, the source should be "recent" to claim it is homophobic. In fact, what I think is better is for the articles to simply state that historically organizations considered conversion therapy as homophobic, but recent statements by XXXX organizations state that only those seeking the therapy for XXX reasons should be encouraged to follow it. That seems more accurate for an article. So basically I'm OK with the category being removed on Conversion Therapy, but if I think of something to encapsulate what I've written, I'll discuss it here or at Conversion Therapy on the talk page.--Boweneer (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says "A social worker may apply techniques that may cause considerable harm and anguish for a client while reinforcing the existing prejudice and homophobia that gay men and lesbians experience daily." I think it is a valid concern that SOCE may reinforce homophobia, but it could also be done in a way that doesn't reinforce homophobia. One of the APA's big concerns is that SOCE may propagate misinformation about homosexuality, thus increasing homophobia. I tried to discuss this in the disclosure sections. I don't think I did a good job and that is on my to-do list to clean up. I want to add a discussion about how misinformation can cause psychological harm and increase homophobia and move it next to the section on psychological effects. There are definitely people who use SOCE for homophobic purposes, and I think that should be discussed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Careful writing will be better IMO than simply slapping a category on the article. I think it's better for the article to delineate the information you are stating.--Boweneer (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr.enh's edits

Please make your case here. Hyper3 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The first section of the text in question is about ex-gays, not about SOCE. The text does not attempt to connect the two. The second section of the text in question is about codes of ethics for professionals, not about "the [individual's] right to chose to attempt to change sexual orientation". The text does not attempt to connect the two. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ex-gays are a class of those who have attempted sexual orientation change - this is relatively clear. Attempt to make it clearer if you wish, but I suggest you don't just remove relevant well-sourced material. Hyper3 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr.enh -please say why you want to change the text, and we will try to reach consensus. Just to say that I am not in favour of removing the text, but would be willing to edit with you to make it more appropriate or connected, if that is your view. Unfortunately we cannot remove text just because we don't like it, but must give reasons and build consensus where there are other interested parties. Hyper3 (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I give reasons in all of my edit summaries. Please refer to them. If you disagree, please explain why in your reversion summaries on on this page. The ball is in your court. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are your summaries and here are my responses:

• Voluntary SOCE: rm off-topic text - In discussing SOCE, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the actions of government entities in regards to SOCE.
• Debate in professional literature: rm text with no apparent relation to SOCE - The text refers to this section of the APA's code of standards in regards to self-determination. This is a major issue in discussing the right to pursue SOCE.
• Voluntary SOCE: no evidence of anyone trying to prohibit people from attempting SOCE; section is about ethics of people offering SOCE treatments - What is the difference? If no one can offer SOCE treatment, then no one can attempt SOCE treatment. These organization offering SOCE treatments are often just support groups of people attempting SOCE. You can't separate the two.
• Reaction by gay community: rm off-topic text (not about reaction by gay community)) - It was gay right activists who caused the controversy. It is definitely about SOCE. If you don't think it belongs there, where do you think it should go?
• rm spamlink to SOCE advocate - PATH is a coalition of the major supporters of SOCE. Each of the individual members of the coalition have made similar statements, but referencing the coalition is simpler. Explaining the position of SOCE advocates is necessary to explain the Position of SOCE advocates.
• Position of SOCE advocates: rm unencyclopedic "feelings," rm WP:SPS and associated text Don't understand your disagreement. This isn't self-published. Randy Thomas didn't self publish it. What is the issue with feelings? Is it that people who feel it has been helpful? We can reword to say found it has been helpful.

I hope this explains the reasons. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I have some questions.

• • How is SOCE connected to protected status for ex-gays? Sounds like implied WP:OR. You did not address my point

"no evidence of anyone trying to prohibit people from attempting SOCE; section is about ethics of people offering SOCE treatments."

• • Debate in professional literature" I conceed that this is relevant if the section is talking about provision of SOCE, but not if it is talking about the right to SOCE. Your last edit reverts it to talking about the right to SOCE. I see no reliable source addressint the right to SOCE.
  • Reaction by gay community: rm off-topic text (not about reaction by gay community)) (McClurken and Kempling) the sources do not support your statement that "It was gay right activists who caused the controversy". Sounds like WP:OR.
  • You need a secondary source to support your assertion that "PATH is a coalition of the major supporters of SOCE". Please see WP:SPS
  • We can reword to say found it has been helpful. Fine, as long as you provide a WP:RS reliable, secondary source.

--Dr.enh (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the intro to be about "The status of voluntary SOCE and those who seek it". This should include both the right to pursue SOCE as well as to offer it, as well as the status of people who pursue it (ie ex-gays). I hope this rewording will include all of the subpoints and avoid any problems the previous wording might have caused. I have changed the title of the subsection about the gay reaction to be a more generic debate. That way, there is no implication that the suspension of Kempling or the controversy around Donnie McClurkin was necessarily from gay right advocates. As far as the Randy Thomas source is concerned, you keep saying it is self-published. Randy didn't publish it, it was CNS. I have reworded it to make that clear. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cybercast News Service is the WP:SPS. It is a mouthpiece of think tank, the Media Research Center. The SF Chron reference was a reliable source, but it did not support the quote nor the assertion of oppression. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Explaining insertion of deleted material

This sentence was removed from the intro: There is insufficient evidence to tell whether or not such efforts are effective at changing sexual orientation. I replaced it with A task force commissioned by the APA determined that there is insufficient to conclude whether or not such efforts can work in changing a person’s sexual orientation. The sentence I used to back it up is from the report which states: "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."

There was a fact tag placed next to reports of benefit. This was the sentence I used to support that claim: "Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Nicolosi et al., 2000; Schaeffer et al., 2000; Schroeder & Shidlo, 2001; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002; Smith et al., 2004), just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it."

I'm not sure why the reference to WHO was removed. It had two references, one from the WHO itself which says "The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it". The other is from Jaypee Brothers. Everything I have read up on them seems that they are a legitimate medical organization. I do not understand why it was classified as a fringe source. The source is not saying what should or should not be done about an ego-dystonic sexual orientation, but is simply explaining the WHO point of view. I know a lot of countries outside of the US practice SOCE under the WHO classification of ego-dystonic sexual orientation. I have restored it.

I hope this sheds some light on the reasonings behind my edits. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

6.3.2 political debate

Why is there a "political debate" subsection of a subsection of "political debate"? --Dr.enh (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Good catch! I was trying to distinguish it from the debate within the professional literature. I have changed the main section to just be debate and the subsection to be public debate rather than political debate. Also, about Donnie McClurkin, the reason why his appearance caused issues is because he claims to have changed his sexual orientation through SOCE, and advocates SOCE as a cure for sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Advocate sources, Donnie McClurkin is controversial because he has called homosexuality a “curse” that runs against “the intention of God,” he is an antigay singer, etc., not because he is a voluntary SOCE advocate. The TPM source is unreliable. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a "Public debate" subsection of a subsection of "Debate"? --Dr.enh (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this article

A lot of material has been removed from this article with the explanation that it was "not about the merits of SOCE". I think there has been some confusion. From what I understand, this article is supposed to cover all aspects of SOCE, not just the merits of SOCE. This would include freedom of speech issues surrounding SOCE as well as special government protection for SOCE and those who promote it. To only discuss the merits of SOCE does not provide a broad picture of what is going on with SOCE.

Some of the comments have also said that some of the material was not related to the debate. I have renamed the section Society and SOCE to better encompass the material in the section. In the future, I would like to request that rather than deleting material related to SOCE, we first discuss if it could be better placed in another section.

I also wanted to address the issue of using self-published sources. Self-published sources can be used to identify information about themselves (see WP:SELFPUB). For example, it is perfectly reasonable to use PATH as a source to describe what PATH thinks about themselves. For example, the Flat Earth Society is hardly considered a reliable source, however, they are referenced frequently in the article about the Flat Earth Society to reference what they believe.

Please discuss massive changes before deleting material. Thank you. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't seriously fail to see the distinction between freedom of speech and SOCE, can you? Please see WP:TOPIC. Please also re-read WP:SELFPUB. PATH can be used as a source about what PATH thinks in the PATH article only. All the press releases (findarticle.com) are unreliable sources. WP:SPS: "Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Also, I remind you of WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You need to preovide reliable sources before restoring material. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I reread WP:SELFPUB as you requested. It says: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." PATH may be used in an article about PATH, but it may also be used when discussing PATH. Also, the deleted material was a discussion about the freedom to talk about SOCE, not a generic essay on freedom of speech. It is directly related to SOCE. Please leave the article as is before creating major changes. Please review Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss. It says "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions." If you continue to make large changes to this article without first discussing them, I will refer you to edit-warring board. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:BURDEN and address your remarks to the merits of the edits, rather than making threats Wikipedia:Civility. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are currently engaged in an edit war. Please cease and attempt to form consensus before continuing to revert. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I await Joshuajohanson's comments on the merits of the edits, and meeting of the WP:BURDEN. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already responded. To summarize, self-published sources can be used as sources of information about themselves per WP:SELFPUB. The purpose of this article is not simply to discuss the merits of SOCE, but all aspects of SOCE, including how SOCE relates to free speech and other persecutions. I think with something as highly debated as this should contain both sides of the debate. Simply restricting the content to opponents questions about the merits of SOCE and removing content about supporters arguments about not being able to freely pursue SOCE without opposition is not a neutral way to present this material. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean we have to give minority opinions as much coverage as the mainstream majority view. Neutrality doesn't mean we have to give the opinions of laymen as much coverage as that of experts, scholars and scientists. See WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Gabbe (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What part of the removed material conflicts with mainstream majority view? Part of the removed material was Washington DC giving a special status to those who pursue SOCE. Is the Washington DC Supreme Court against mainstream view? Mainstream medical organizations have long spoke in favor of the right of people to pursue the sexual activities of their choice. I realize that many people do not agree with that right, but you can't say that it goes against the mainstream view. Much of the deleted material simply discusses some of the controversies. For example, opponents of the right to seek SOCE argued against Donnie McClurkin being involved in Obama's tour because he advocates that it is possible to change sexual orientation (he calls it breaking the curse of homosexuality.) Simply reporting the controversy doesn't take one side or the other. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington DC is off-topic, a point you don't deny. The sources say that McClurkin is controversial because of anti-gay statements he has made, not because of pro-SOCE statements. I know you have had difficulty with this in the past in other articles, but please, try to stay on topic and stick to the sources, rather than dragging in every possible reference to anything that tangentially metions or implies ex-gays are involved. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that McClurkin and DC are off-topic, but right now I want to focus on the removal of the position of PATH. As I quoted from WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." From this it seems reasonable that PATH can be used to reference the position of PATH. Part of PATH position is equal access to public forums. I think information regarding equal access to public forums is relevant because that is one of the things that PATH advocates. Much of the related material that you removed was about equal access of SOCE advocates to public forums. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be prudent to quote young Earth creationists in the Evolution article? Or Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article? Or Iridologists in the Glaucoma article? PATH is a fringe group. Gabbe (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Or, to use your example from above, should we quote the Flat Earth Society in an article about the Earth? Gabbe (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have several sources that say that SOCE is under extensive debate in both the popular media as well as professional literature. The most recent investigation by the APA task force quoted several benefits from SOCE, similar to other support groups, but said there is no evidence whether or not SOCE are effective. If you could provide evidence that there is extensive debate on whether the holocaust really happened or whether the Earth is flat, and a task force to determine the validity of these claims could find no evidence whether or not the holocaust really happened or whether or not the earth was flat, then those organizations should be included in the respective article. However, that is not the case. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Dr.enh (talk · contribs) delete references to professional literature in this edit? Gabbe (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, in that edit he removed references by media sources covering the debate. I was not trying to say that he removed information on the debate in professional literature. The point of bringing that up was to show that PATH is not a fringe group. Holocaust deniers and the flat earth society are fringe group because their views are not even considered in the professional literature. The views that were removed from the article include: "Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality, a coalition of major ex-gay groups, support the right for individuals to personal choice to pursue whatever sexual orientation identity that they chose, the right to know accurate information to make informed decisions, and the right to self-determine their own goals in therapy. They advocate compassion and respect for everyone regardless of their choice of sexual orientation identity, and policy neutrality in creating laws that would inhibit freedom of speech to discuss SOCE. They claim equal access to public forums to state their viewpoint, share their experiences, and to raise awareness of ways to reject a gay identity." This statement is completely in line with the position of mainstream medical organizations and is not a fringe viewpoint. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This has come up again and again. The article is about Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, which many will consider "fringe" from the beginning. This is the point, there is extensive debate. You cannot carry on the debate if opponents insist that the view under discussion is not worth discussing, or all opposing views are fringe, and not worth quoting! if we do this, we get a one sided non neutral page. I understand such comments on the homosexuality page, but not on this page. The point is that various people still believe that sexual orientation can change and efforts should be made. Such people deserve a place in this article, as it is about them! We would quote Flat Earth advocates on the Flat Earth page! Hyper3 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And it does, in a section appropriately titled "Modern myth of the Flat Earth". When we quote laymen in their opposition to the scientific consensus, we must be very cautious to avoid violating WP:GEVAL. Gabbe (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What part is in opposition to the scientific consensus? I see no opposition. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF This is a talk page about SOCE. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)