View source for Talk:Ex-gay movement

{{talkheader}}
{{LGBTProject | class=B}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=B|importance=mid}}

== NPOV? ==

This article isnt't supposed to be neutral, is it?
It mostly reads like an ex-gay ad. In the lead section it almost seems as if APA supports the ex-gay movement. It quotes APA to promote sexual identity can be changed; it doesn't mention that APA considers this unlikely and possibly harmful. This is a distortion of the facts.--[[User:Dvd-junkie|DVD-junkie]] | [[User talk:Dvd-junkie|talk]] | 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
:The entire article is about a minority POV.  As such, that minority POV is to be described in an NPOV way.  To someone who doesn't agree with the minority POV, the NPOV treatment of that minority POV may seem POVish, but the article is fundamentally not about the majority POV. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
::I am aware of that. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. As it is, the article presents the minority view as fact, not as an opinion. For example, the above mentioned quote – taken out of context – seems to support the ex-gay movement, which the APA does not.--[[User:Dvd-junkie|DVD-junkie]] | [[User talk:Dvd-junkie|talk]] | 02:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
::: What do you think about appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay&diff=359383256&oldid=359181593 Ckatz repeatedly removed it. It is clear that current version of the article does not describe majority viewpoint in sufficient detail. --[[User:Destinero|Destinero]] ([[User talk:Destinero|talk]]) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Actually, the article needs to be reworded substantially and balanced with the majority view. The article presents the ex-gay movement as “supportive”, almost nurturing, while they propose to “repair” something that wasn't broken in the first place. The article doesn't mention their motivations. Ex-gay literature not only ignores the impact of social stigma in motivating efforts to “cure” homosexuality, it is a literature that actively stigmatizes homosexuality as well.
::::There's much to be done.--[[User:Dvd-junkie|DVD-junkie]] | [[User talk:Dvd-junkie|talk]] | 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Well, ''of course'' it does, because that's the point of the ex-gay movement.  NPOV is not a license to censor minority viewpoints. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Who said anything about censoring? Wikipedia policy clearly states: “An article should clearly '''describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic''', but should '''not endorse any particular point of view'''[...] Values or '''opinions must never be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice'''. When we discuss an opinion, we '''attribute the opinion to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons''', and discuss the fact that '''they have this opinion''', citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion.” At present, the article does not adhere to this policy.--[[User:Dvd-junkie|DVD-junkie]] | [[User talk:Dvd-junkie|talk]] | 17:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The viewpoint that ex-gay is trying to "repair something that wasn't broken in the first place" cannot be a premise of this article. This article can neither assert the ex-gay POV ("something is broken") nor assert tho anti-ex-gay POV ("nothing broken here"). Rather it should describe what the ex-gay movement says about homosexuality.

Along with the description of what ex-gay says and does, we can also include '''as many words as it takes''' to show that ex-gay runs counter to the mainstream, or has been denounced by various professional groups, and so on. 

However, it might take a different, larger article to address the controversies over homosexuality: 
#Is there scientific proof that it is harmful or innocuous?
#Is there scientific proof that the [[homosexual orientation]] is innate, i.e., entirely inherited and not originating during [[early childhood]]?
#Is there scientific proof that it is impossible (or possible) for homosexual (or bisexual) persons to change (if they choose to make the effort to do so)?
#Is there scientific proof that every type of [[conversion therapy]] results in harm to those who volunteer to undergo it?

I have no opinion on any of the above, since I'm neither a scientists nor a therapist. But I do read books, magazines, and web articles. I've seen viewpoints on both sides. I'm also very interested in science, so if there are studies that have findings that bear on ony of the 4 questions above, I'd sure like to see them all in one place.

I don't want to see Wikipedia take sides on anything, unless there is something new in [[WP:NPOV]] added since I was a top-100 contributor and considered an expert on neutrality issues. If the new policy is that we present [[mainstream science]] as "true" and dismiss everything else as "fringe" or "erroneous" or [[pseudoscience]], then so be it. Otherwise, I'd rather we remained unbiased. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 19:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::My point exactly. The article shouldn't take sides, shouldn't be biased. Of course, it should mention the ex-gay movement's positions – and attribute them accordingly: as '''their positions''', not as fact (just a matter of proper phrasing).

::*The lead section improperly takes the ex-gay movement's self-image ("'''supporting''' ego-dystonic homosexuals") for granted. While they claim to advocate self-determination – sounds noble, doesn't it? –, they do not advocate for people choosing to have same sex relationships. They don't merely target ego-dystonic homosexuality – they foster a disapproving attitude toward homosexuality in general. They don't present the possibility that gays might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships, nor do they discuss alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization. Instead of merely providing and supporting a choice, they stigmatize and pathologize those who, in their mind, choose wrongly (as morally corrupt / sinful / unholy / suffering from a mental disorder).  So, "support" is quite a euphemism. 

::*The lead should summarize the whole article, yet it doesn't even mention the consideral controversy that surrounds this whole topic (and that the article briefly touches upon), while distorting the APA's point of view. I am not going to argue that we label mainstream science as "true", but at least their position should be presented (not misrepresented).

::*The article describes the movement's position that homosexuality could and should be overcome, but not why.—[[User:Dvd-junkie|DVD-junkie]] | [[User talk:Dvd-junkie|talk]] | 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Exactly.  What is the ex-gay movement's main purpose - to get gays to convert, or to help those individuals who themselves want to convert?  In either case, what are the motives?  Possibilities I can see are:
:::* A view, either religious or personal, that homosexuality is immoral (though this still begs the question of why)
:::* [[Conformism]], a view that heterosexuality is a social norm to be followed
:::* A view that homosexuality is a disease, presumably on a [[majority rule]] basis
:::* Finding it difficult to get by in a mainly heterosexual world
::: In any case, the article needs to address the reasons for the movement's existence. — [[User:Smjg|Smjg]] ([[User talk:Smjg|talk]]) 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

== NARTH is NOT WP:RS ==

Ok, NARTH is not a reliable source. NARTH is a advocacy group with an agenda, and as such, by definition not a reliable source! -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
:They are, like all SPS, reliable for what they themselves say. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, they fail to back-up their claims with scientific evidence.--[[User:Dvd-junkie|DVD-junkie]] | [[User talk:Dvd-junkie|talk]] | 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


As much as they disgust me, my belief, from my (possibly limited) understanding of how Wikipedia works, is that they can still be used as references to indicate '''what they said'''. Inotherwords, sure, maybe (heh) their site cannot be used as references to general fact, etc; but it can be used to prove they "said" something. Ie: "NARTH claims ________" (cite to their site where they claim whatever). That is much different than using them in support of a statement of science or fact. It just proves they publicly made such a claim/statement/etc. 


Additionally, wouldn't NOT including such a citation violate Wikipedia's rule about adding controversial information about extant organazations and living people without it being cited properly? [[User:RobertMfromLI|RobertMfromLI]] | [[User talk:RobertMfromLI|User Talk]] 16:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

== Who stuck "Citation Needed" tags in this? I'm removing them. ==

Hello all,
Seems, probably in an effort to get controversial information removed, someone has stuck two citation needed tags in a '''single''' paragraph with '''five''' citations.

Excerpt of the paragraph:

''There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay&curid=292314&diff=381263036&oldid=381262649#cite_note-rcp2007-0 [1]]</sup> Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.<sup>[''[[wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]]'']</sup> Indeed, such interventions are ethically suspect because they can be harmful to the psychological well-being of those who attempt them; clinical observations and self-reports indicate that many individuals who unsuccessfully attempt to change their sexual orientation experience considerable psychological distress.<sup>[''[[wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]]'']</sup> For these reasons, no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay&curid=292314&diff=381263036&oldid=381262649#cite_note-1 [2]]</sup><sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay&curid=292314&diff=381263036&oldid=381262649#cite_note-royal2009-2 [3]]</sup><sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ex-gay&curid=292314&diff=381263036&oldid=381262649#cite_note-aps-3 [4]]</sup> ''


As one can see, at least three of the citations cover the whole section of the paragraph that had the cite needed tags. I've thus removed those tags. Let me know if anyone has a problem with it, or if I have misinterpreted the content in the cites.


[[User:RobertMfromLI|RobertMfromLI]] | [[User talk:RobertMfromLI|User Talk]] 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


:I've removed two more cite needed tag - in the first, the sentence already had a citation. In the second, the citation was on the 2nd sentence of the paragraph. Methinks, either ('''assuming''' good faith) someone added citations and forgot to remove the tags, or ('''not assuming''' good faith) someone keeps adding citation needed tags to anything they don't like, hoping those sentences or paragraphs will be removed if citations are not added. [[User:RobertMfromLI|RobertMfromLI]] | [[User talk:RobertMfromLI|User Talk]] 16:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
: I really don't know who put those tags there. Everything is referenced immediately after statements by highly credible sources. Thus, I support removing those tags, since they should not been there. --[[User:Destinero|Destinero]] ([[User talk:Destinero|talk]]) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

== Censorship of ex-gays in libraries ==

Hi y'all.  I'm not really involved on this page, but I would like the regular editors to consider the censorship of ex-gay material in American public libraries and whether that should be included here somehow&mdash;looks meaty enough to be included in my opinion:

*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203644.html Banned Books, Chapter 2; Conservative Group Urges Libraries to Accept Collection], The Washington Post
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569135,00.html Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books], Fox News
*[http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34493 The Corrupt American Library Association Censors with Carefree Abandon], Illinois Family Institute
*[http://blog.libraryjournal.com/annoyedlibrarian/2008/10/08/some-censorship-is-good/ Some "Censorship" is Good], Library Journal

That should be a good start.  Thank you.  I'll likely leave this in the hands of y'all, especially since I have a possible [[WP:COI]] about libraries, as stated on my User page. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 01:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

:I read the first link (I dont bother checking for news stories at Fox links), and it seems a very odd situation. The group in question wants to donate books which state things every major medical authority claims is nonsense and may actually cause harm to those dealing with their sexuality. The same books are based on discrimination and nasty rhetoric - yet they name their movement "True Tolerance"

:I'm not sure where the heck that should go in the article. And while all the above may be my [[WP:POV|POV]], it's largely also the established beliefs referenced in this and the related articles (with plenty of citations).

:Are any of the other links better? Best, [[User:RobertMfromLI|RobertMfromLI]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|User Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|Contribs]]</sup> 02:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
:At the very least, it seems sufficient RS coverage to document the fact that a controversy exists.  One needn't take a position on the scientific underpinning of such books to document that certain folks want them included in a collection and others want them excluded. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

::Jclemens: I agree 100%. I literally meant I dont know where it should go... that's why I mentioned the citations over the controversial aspects. Best, [[User:RobertMfromLI|RobertMfromLI]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|User Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|Contribs]]</sup> 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
*[http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=35054 ALA's Ironic "Banned Books Week"], Illinois Family Institute

There's another one. It has quotes from [[Judith Krug]] that may be directly relevant. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:It's almost 2 months since I raised this issue and nothing much has happened.  So, despite my COI, I may start adding things soon. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:The problem I see is also including the reasons why there is such censorship, if such exists. Without that, the proposed section would not be balanced. Is it censorship? Is it a lack of interest in such books? Do the institutions in question have reasons for such? Is it intentional? Most libraries attempt to include books for which there is a demand for - if there's no demand, the books generally are not there (assuming the librarians and such are accurately doing their jobs in getting books their readers have interest in). A claim of censorship should be backed by a claim from those such a claim is being levied against. I'd prefer to see a indication from someone who makes such policy as opposed to by a person who has no such authority. But that's just my opinion. <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|<span style="border:1px solid #100;background:#fff;padding:1px;">R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TALK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CNTRB]]</sub></small> 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
::I think that could be done.  But it is very hard to find someone admitting they are censoring ex-gay material.  Normally it's done more diplomatically, like by saying the publishers are small, or no trusted source has reviewed the books.  The trusted sources, of course, are often branches of the same people blocking the book. So if/when I do add this, I'll will endeavor to find solid sources.  I'm just not putting effort into it in the hopes others will do it first, due to my possible COI. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


:::Hmmm... perhaps what you can do is create a version of the proposed text in your userspace, and post a link to it here asking for assistance or comments? Then when it's complete, make the proposal for inclusion (and possibly even allow someone else to add it if a consensus is reached)? My personal feelings on the subject matter as a whole aside (which I wont discuss as I will endeavor to ensure they don't affect any contributions I may consider), I am all for any relevant information; complimentary/criticism/informational, as long as it's pertinent to the subject and written in the correct fashion. 
:::My first suggestion would be to ditch the non-news source as a source it's happening (I'd use it to enforce/cite a '''claim''' that it's happening at most, but not to indicate it '''is''' happening) - simply because, especially on an article that seems contentious, there are sure to be people who will claim they are biased sources.
:::Then there is of course the other aspect in my earlier post that you brought up good points about. If the sources all go along those routes, then I'd think the section simply needs to be balanced showing such institutions claim they are not censoring anything and are instead... "diplomatic answer".
:::That should make it pretty easy and unbiased. Side A claims censorship, Side B claims not censoring and the books aren't there because (reason). Simple claim<sup>(cites)</sup>, simple counter-claim<sup>(cites)</sup>. Nothing that states they '''are''' being censored, and nothing that states (diplomatic reason). Just claim, counterclaim. 
:::Anyway, those are my suggestions... :-) Best, Rob <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|<span style="border:1px solid #100;background:#fff;padding:1px;">R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TALK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CNTRB]]</sub></small> 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

== People associated with the ex-gay movement ==

A citation needed tag was added to this article in an entry in [[Ex-gay#People_associated_with_the_ex-gay_movement|People associated with the ex-gay movement]]. In attempting to find a citation, I have found the entry [[Donnie Davies|(Donnie Davies)]] is not a person, but a fictional character, thus I have removed the entry as opposed to adding a cite. If anyone objects and believes that fictitious characters should be included in that list, then perhaps it should be discussed here, including renaming that category to something more indicative of what will be in it. Best, Robert <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|<span style="border:1px solid #100;background:#fff;padding:1px;">R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TALK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CNTRB]]</sub></small> 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
:'''Agree''' with removal. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 03:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

== Abstinence vs conversion therapy ==

From [[SOCE]]: "Most ex-gay groups focus on abstaining from homosexual relationships rather than a complete sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual." You wouldn't arrive at that after reading this article. The article is WP:UNDUE toward psycho therapies, in particilar conversion therapy. [[User:Lionelt|Lionel]] ([[User talk:Lionelt|talk]]) 01:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

:I suspect we need to find which is accurate - or if both are in a non-exclusive fashion that makes the use of the word "most" incorrect. Claims from some of the groups support SOCE, while claims from some group leaders who've "gone straight" through their methods, deem otherwise. Somewhere there's a big inconsistency that makes me think neither portrayal (SOCE or this article) adequately addresses reality. <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|<span style="border:1px solid #100;background:#fff;padding:1px;">R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TALK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CNTRB]]</sub></small> 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::We don't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. That line in the other article has four source, three of them primary. I looked that the only secondary source, an article in ''[[The Times]]'', but it doesn't use the word "abstinence".[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4893735.ece] Am I missing it? &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree 100% with that. What I'm saying isn't disputing the information on either page. Instead, what I am saying is this article (and possibly the other? I've barely even browsed it, so I dont know) may need to more accurately portray things. There are enough cites that claim abstinence is the main tool, or conversion therapy is, or conversion therapy with abstinence in "times of weakness" is, or a bunch of other things. I suspect that there is no hard and fast data to indicate which is more prevalent, and the article should be balanced to support claims of each based on the RS's available. Inotherwords, regardless of the reality that we cannot prove, each claim should be given due, properly sourced, weight - which is the best I suspect we can do. Hope that explains what I was trying to say. <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|<span style="border:1px solid #100;background:#fff;padding:1px;">R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TALK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CNTRB]]</sub></small> 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

{{hat}}
== BRD violation ==

A [[WP:BRD]] violation may have occurred as it appears an editor is edit warring.  I am writing this here per [[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR]]. The diffs are these:

*(cur | prev) 17:08, 10 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (54,412 bytes) (''you are once again mistaken about policy. look up UNDUE, FRINGE and RSMED; the majority view can be stated as fact'') (undo)
*(cur | prev) 16:57, 10 December 2010 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk | contribs) (54,994 bytes) ('Undid revision 401638786 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) - rv - blanket stmts like "X is not a RS" violate WP:RS context req'mt'') (undo)
*(cur | prev) 16:51, 10 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (54,412 bytes) (''narth is not a reliable source; please discuss this before making more changes'') (undo)
*(cur | prev) 16:39, 10 December 2010 JohnnyLopez 3 (talk | contribs) (54,994 bytes) (''Made some edits to add balance.'') (undo)  

The second removal of a source constitutes the edit war. Please consider what action should be taken.  

See how the edit warrior removed a ref saying, "narth is not a reliable source", I responded by saying, "blanket stmts like 'X is not a RS' violate WP:RS context req'mt", then the edit warrior removed the ref again, ignoring the need to consider a ref in context as required by [[WP:RS]].  He then violated [[WP:AGF]] saying, "you are once again mistaken about policy" and followed up with switching reasons for removal of the ref, "look up UNDUE, FRINGE and RSMED".  That appears to be edit warring to me, it also appears uncivil, and it appears to violate BRD, made all the worse by his telling the editor who added the ref, "please discuss this before making more changes." 

Thanks.  --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

:In my 16:51 edit, I asked that you "please discuss this '''before''' making more changes". Unfortunately, you didn't do that, so I had to revert you. Fortunately, it had the desired effect of getting you to come here and talk about it. Unfortunately, you're busy violating [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]], while completely ''ignoring'' the point. If you have a point regarding content, please share it. Otherwise, I'm going to hat this section and move on. [[User:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan</font>]] [[User Talk:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty</font>]] 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

::You talking to me?  The 16:51 edit you mentioned was a message to another editor. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
:LAEC, if the BRD cycle was followed, nobody would have put the NARTH stuff back in but discussed it here. BTW, NARTH is utterly not WP:RS. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
::Perhaps.  In this case it was the guy's first edit.  There's a rule somewhere about jumping down a newbie's throat.  Besides, I was not aware of any existing Narth exclusion rule as I am not a regular editor on this page.  Also, Narth may be a RS--depending on the context, per [[WP:RS]].  Yes, that context may be very limited, but it is appropriate in some places.  It is never appropriate to automatically writeoff any source without first considering context.  That was the problem in this case. Further, even if Narth is not reliable in the context in question, that is not an excuse for the behaviour demonstrated above. Let an editor get away with edit warring and it will just continue elsewhere. No one let me get away with it and I have no further edit wars now and work cooperatively with others, even when provoked. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Doesn't matter if it is someones first edit or not. The '''BRD''' cycle still applies. As for NARTH, NARTH is only reliable for what it says about itself. So yes, you are right, they are WP:RS for some things. All the other stuff they claim have been soundly disproven. Reverting the bold edit was the '''R''' in the '''BRD'''. That is no edit warring. (Oh, btw, this is a topic I know a lot about, NARTH is about as reliable on this topic as the flat earth society on the shape of the earth.)-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
:::He only made two edits, and I saw the other one first. Both were made without discussion and clearly pushed POV.
:::No edit warring has occurred, but I'm going to remind you to adhere closely to [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. As for [[WP:BRD]], it's a fine idea and I generally stick to it, but it's not intended to be an enforceable rule. Trust me on this one: I learned the hard way. [[User:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan</font>]] [[User Talk:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty</font>]] 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Dylan Flaherty, I do not understand your comment.  You are the one whose actions have been called into question per [[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR]]. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? [[User:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan</font>]] [[User Talk:Dylan Flaherty|<font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty</font>]] 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't report BRD violations on the article's talk page. You discuss the ''content'' on the talk page. If you have issues with a user's edits, then perhaps talk to them on ''their'' talk page, or seek options at [[Wikipedia:DR]]. [[User:Westbender|Westbender]] ([[User talk:Westbender|talk]]) 00:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
:[[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR]] says, "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on [[Wikipedia:edit summary|edit summaries]] and discuss the matter on the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]]. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 00:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
::"Discuss the matter on the article's talk page" means discussing the ''content'' that is disputed. It does ''not'' mean cut/pasting edit histories, detailing grievances, and asking for action to be taken against an editor. There are noticeboards and dispute resolution options for that. This page is for discussing content, not editors. Please...... [[User:Westbender|Westbender]] ([[User talk:Westbender|talk]]) 03:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== youtube ==

Am attempting to AGF however an editor repeatedly adding content sourced to youtube in violation of WP:RSEX. Because the subject is a living person 3RR is not applicable per WP:BLP. [[User:Lionelt|Lionel]] ([[User talk:Lionelt|talk]]) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

== Non-notable persons ==

Is there a rationale as to why persons not notable to have their own articles are included in the lists the way they are? In other article categories, ie. schools, only persons of sufficient notability should be included in lists. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> 01:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:List entries do not necessarily require their own article. It is enough they they can be shown to be a member of the list by way of reliable sourcing. Also, notability only applies to articles, not content. Most of the entries are sourced and pass WP:STAND.  [[User:Lionelt|Lionel]] ([[User talk:Lionelt|talk]]) 02:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::The list violates this:
:::"Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus the list."
::It should probably be shortened to only those notable to have their own articles. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>:[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> 02:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Um, you do realize that [[WP:STAND]] doesn't apply to lists included in other articles on notable topics, right? In general, your assertion that lists should only include notable entries is at odds with [[WP:NNC]], which notes that standalone lists (which this is not) have an ''option'' to restrict membership to notable entries.  If there's any good reason to trim/delete items from the list, BLP is probably the most relevant. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Should've cited [[WP:Source list]]. [[User:Lionelt|Lionel]] ([[User talk:Lionelt|talk]]) 03:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I apparently disagree on almost everything from the above user but he's correct that this article's list is fine. When the history of these movements is better laid out most, if not all will be a part of the narrative, Perhaps as a compromise we can put it all in date order by group rather than by last name.[[User:STL1989|STL1989]] ([[User talk:STL1989|talk]]) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:Hey STL, great to finally be on the same side of an issue for a change. I think I'll try to enjoy this while it lasts. [[User:Lionelt|Lionel]] ([[User talk:Lionelt|talk]]) 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== Article name change ==

I believe the name of this article should be changed to "Ex-gay movement". Although the article gives backdrop about the meaning of the term "ex-gay", most of the article focuses on the various organizations that comprise the movement. Even the the People section is not about people who are ex-gay but about people associated with the movement (obviously, there is a lot of overlap).

I'll give other editors some time to comment on my proposal before taking any action.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agreed. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


==History==
*''Ex-gay organizations began in the U.S. with Evangelical Christians, but have since spread to include Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious groups in several countries.'' 
we don't have a source for this sentence in the intro, and I don't see it repeated in the body of the text. It's my understanding that efforts to cure homosexual urges were an early part of psychiatry, at a time when the religious communities' response was simply to repent. It's possible that the organizations, ''per se'', started with evangelical groups, but this article isn't just about ex-gay organizations. Maybe it'd be better to change the sentence to something without the chronological claims, something like, "In addition to ex-gay organizations started by Evangelical Christians in the U.S., there are also groups founded by Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious groups in several countries." Any objections to that change? &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 19:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:If we are moving it to "Ex-gay movement", then sticking with organizations makes sense, but I'm concerned about another aspect of that sentence, in that it makes it sound like there are groups of those various denominations in other countries, which the article doesn't have real support for each of those. Though Evergreen International may have "International" in their name, they are a US-based organization. JONAH may refer people to therapists in Israel, but they are again a US-based organization.
:But yeah, if you read the body text, you'll see the claim that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was the first to start such counseling as a group emphasis; while that wasn't the sole reason for existence of the group, we don't have a definition of "ex-gay group" that excludes them, and they are not Evangelical Christian. -- --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the proposal was '''move per request'''.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
----
[[Ex-gay]] → {{no redirect|1=Ex-gay movement}} — See discussion above for rationale and no opposition. I tried to do the move myself, but there is an existing redirect page called Ex-gay movement that redirects to the current Ex-gay article. I then got hopelessly lost in the instructions on how to fix that, or if I could even fix it, and figured it was easier just to ask for help. At the end of the process, the current ex-gay article should be renamed to ex-gay movement, and there should be a redirect called ex-gay to ex-gay movement, essentially a swap. --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== Lead language ==

The lead sentence says: "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that support people in changing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation ..." It has used the phrase "support people" at least to as far back as April 2010 (I didn't keep going backwards after that). Another editor, Arthur Smart, wants to change the sentence to read: "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that encourage people to try to change their ego-dystonic sexual orientation ..." I reverted (now twice) because "encourager people to try" is [[WP:WEASEL|weasely]]. Arthur appears to think that somehow the word "support" means that the movement will succeed or that they are guaranteeing the change, or that support is vague, i.e., what kind of support. I think it's pretty clear that the movement wants to change gay people's thinking and behavior and wants to support them in their efforts to make those changes. Any feelings about this little tiff?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:I think both wordings are problematic, actually. "Encourage people to" suggests that they reach out to people to make the change, which is not how they self-depict (which is not to say that it's not what they do, but we would need source to indicate that they make people want to change, rather than to help people who already want to change.) "Support people in changing" does suggest success, which may be their self-depiction, but is problematic for that. "support people seeking to change" would be better. I'd also change "egodystonic sexual orientation" with "egodystonic homosexuality", as there has been no source I've seen indicating that the movement addressed egodystonic heterosexuality. And "change" is actually a tricky word here, since they seem willing to settle for making you a non-practicing homosexual if they cannot achieve non-homosexual, so "seeking to address" may be better still. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::The best way to word it would be to find a source that supports a particular wording, but I'm not sure that the different groups are monolithic enough to agree on one wording. Of the choices you mention, the seeking phrase is, in my view, again too weasely. I don't agree that changing implies success. The word support makes it clear that the groups are helping, not guaranteeing. As for changing sexual orientation to homosexuality, I'm against that because I think the movements probably include bisexuals, not just gay people. As for your comment about the movement settling for changing behavior rather than orientation, I think that's covered sufficiently in the remainder of the sentence - the part we are talking about is only the first clause.
::So, just in case it's unclear, I'm still in favor of leaving it as is.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:::No, there's nothing weaselly about indicating that they are supporting those who are trying, not just those who are succeeding. Change is change, it is (contextually) "success". And when addressing a bisexual, its the homosexual aspects that they are seeking to change - these folks show no sign of trying to eliminate the straightness. And that first clause sets up the whole rest of the sentence; it's all "and"ed together. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I disagree with all of your points. The word support clarifies that the change isn't guaranteed, the movement is just helping. Bisexual is an orientation, even if the focus is on eliminating the homosexual aspect. Finally, the anding of the sentence doesn't change (sorry) my analysis. In any event, the sentence suffers from lack of parallelism at the moment anyway. The entire sentence is: "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that support people in changing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation, refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, develop heterosexual attractions, and possibly enter into an opposite-sex relationship." It should read, gramatically, "The ex-gay movement consists of people, support groups and organizations that support people in changing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation, refraining from pursuing same-sex relationships, developing heterosexual attractions, and possibly entering into an opposite-sex relationship." As an aside, I'd leave out the word "possibly" at the end. In any event, the idea is that the phrase "support people in" applies to each four clauses that succeed it.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::"The word support clarifies that the change isn't guaranteed". No, it doesn't. You may choose to read that into it, but one can support many things that actually exist. "Bisexual is an orientation, even if the focus is on eliminating the homosexual aspect" -- since we'd be eliminating the term "orientation", that's not a problem - not that it's much of a problem to being with when discussion ex-''gay''. I can show you plenty of sign that they support those wishing to change their ego-dystonic homosexuality; if you cannot show any sign that they support changing ego-dystonic heterosexuality, then there is no reason why that false claim should be in the opening sentence. Are they offering support for people entering into mixed-sex relationships if they don't have some homosexual conflict? Not in any particular way that I see; the whole rest of the sentence seems quite predicated on that egodystonia clause. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::Why don't you propose a wording for the entire sentence, or multiple sentences to replace the one?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The way bbb23 insists on wording the opening sentence seems to favor the ex-gay movement.  I moved a lede sentence criticizing the movement so that the lede would seem more balanced within its first two sentences.  --[[User:Arthur Smart|Art Smart]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Arthur Smart|<font color="#0047AB">'''Chart'''</font>]]</small></sup>/[[User talk:Arthur Smart#top|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''Heart'''</small></font>]] 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::It never ceases to amaze me the leaping inferences that some editors make about people's motives or agendas. Yours fits right in at the top (bottom?) of the list.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Please spare us the insults, but instead [[WP:AGF]].  You repeatedly reverted my good faith attempts to improve the honesty of the lede sentence (and it is a lede sentence, not a lead sentence, as most people in the newspaper business well know).  Changing sexual orientation is a fool's proposition.  Organizations can't "support people in changing" their sexual orientation any more than they can support a dog to turn into a cat.  The best they can do is encourage people to "try to" change their sexual orientation.  You insist that "try to" are weasel words.  I say they made the lede a little more truthful and less biased in favor of such ex-gay organizations.  To say they support people in actually changing sexual orientation gives them too much credit.  You claim the sentence has been written that way for a long time.  Maybe yes, but for an article entitled "Ex-gay", not "Ex-gay movement".  "Ex-gay" is a hypothetical with not a single absolutely proven example.  The "Ex-gay movement" is very real and very dangerous.  They not only fail in their attempts to convert gays to straights, but they ultimately encourage suicide when the attempts ultimately fail.  --[[User:Arthur Smart|Art Smart]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Arthur Smart|<font color="#0047AB">'''Chart'''</font>]]</small></sup>/[[User talk:Arthur Smart#top|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''Heart'''</small></font>]] 13:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::''The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities, in attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a mixed-sex relationship.'' --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 00:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for proposing a wording. My comments: (1) what's the support for the word "conflicted"? won't the movement support anyone who wants to change, even if they are dyed-in-the-wool gays? (2) I can't follow the grammar/meaning after the first comma - what does "in attempts" modify or continue? (3) I think opposite-sex is more common than and preferable to mixed-sex (sounds like an orgy).--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Nat, that looks great and I totally favor your proposed wording.  Bbb23, "conflicted" is at the heart of "ego-dystonic," but has the advantage of not needed a dictionary to understand.  I say let's go with Nat's wording.  Thanks!  --[[User:Arthur Smart|Art Smart]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Arthur Smart|<font color="#0047AB">'''Chart'''</font>]]</small></sup>/[[User talk:Arthur Smart#top|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''Heart'''</small></font>]] 13:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::As I understand it- and I confess to having never heard of the term egodystonic before this article - Wikipedia says the word means essentially ''unconflicted''. And I read the current sentence in the article to use the word to differentiate one's orientation as an identity from one's orientation as practiced. I do agree that if we can use a simpler word, that would be better. I'd like to hear Nat's reaction to my comments. Depending, I may then propose my own language.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I suspect you went to the page for [[egodystonic]] and read the first definition... missing that the term forwards to a page covering two words, and you were reading the definition for the other one. ''Egodystonic'' does mean conflicted, such as the conflict between wanting same-sex activity and not wanting to want same-sex activity. The comma after "activities" is what some call a "comma of convenience", merely a pause after a portion of a large clause to make it clear where a break is, but I can see where you might think that would confuse the following list structure. "Attempts" modifies all of the following "to"s. "Opposite-sex" is problematic but common structure (it both implies that sexes oppose each other and is unclear what the reference point for "opposite" is), so I'd prefer "heterosexual" or "mixed-sex". --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}
Nat, you're absolutely right about the egodystonic stuff - my dyslexia. Opposite sex, though, really is the accepted term, particulary in the discussion of sexual relationships. See [[homosexuality]] and [[heterosexuality]]. I also googled both terms: opposite sex gets a little over 9M hits, whereas mixed sex gets about 450,000, and most of them are about things like mixed sex education, coed schooling, etc. Here's my suggested wording:{{quote|The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who want to change their same-sex attraction or activities, refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, eliminate same-sex desires, develop opposite-sex desires, or enter into an opposite sex relationship.}} Each clause continues after the phrase "want to". In my view much of it is redundant, or at least overlapping, but I suppose I can live with that. For example, you could just stop the sentence after the word "activities", and it pretty much sums up the movement's goals.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:Plenty of people who aren't in the ex-gay movement want to support people who want to change their sexuality - they just want to support them toward being more accepting of their desires, rather than support them in attempts to change their desire or to not act on their desire. Plus, if each phrase continues after "want to" - no, the ex-gay movement is not addressing those who want to enter into a mixed-sex relationship unless there is some conflict toward them doing so; otherwise, chemistry.com falls under "ex-gay movement". Do you have any problem with the term "heterosexual" instead of "mixed-sex"?  --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
::Do you have some support that the movements only want to work with people who are "conflicted"? I started looking at the websites of the various North American ex-gay organizations, and it's pretty hard to generalize about them - they all seem to have different goals. As for heterosexual, it's preferable to mixed-sex, but then, for the sake of consistency, we'd have to change all the same-sex to homosexual, which I'm not crazy about. What do you have against opposite sex? Do you disagree that it's the more common term? I can't find any support for the term mixed-sex in terms of sexual attraction and relationships.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
:::The language of the ex-gay movement is all about the conflict, about those who ''suffer'' from ''unwanted'' same-sex attraction, about wanting to ''overcome'' their desires. "[http://www.operationrebirth.com/archive/spotlight-abyrd.html People are in conflict with                     themselves, so they live dual lives. The ex-gay movement gives                     an opportunity for the individual to have support and fellowship                     as they endeavor to live with integrity to their own beliefs.]" "[http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2010/02/exodus-president-joins-anti-gay-extremists-for-conference/ Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict]" "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_evan.htm OneByOne's purpose is to support gays and lesbians who are "struggling with sexual brokenness"  and "are in conflict with their sexuality."]" The ex-gay push, as presented by the ex-gay folks, is about people who want to not want what they want - that is conflict. They're not about being a dating service for already straight folks, which is what you're left with if you take out the part about the conflict. As for "opposite sex", beyond that curious base formation that the sexes are in opposition (I know I'm not opposed to women; I rather like 'em!), there's a difference between using the formulation in reference to a given person ("Janey is attracted to members of the opposite sex", it is the sex that is opposite Janey's sex) than to a relationship ("the couple down the street has an opposite-sex relationship" - the opposite of whom?) That's different from the construction of the term "same-sex relationship", where the sex is the same throughout; one cannot say that the sex is "opposite" throughout a relationship. But I have not problem with having both "same-sex" and "heterosexual" in a sentence. "Same-sex relationship" gets about 4 times the ghits of "homosexual relationship"; "heterosexual relationship" gets about 4 times the ghits of "opposite-sex relationship", so in both cases that would be the more common term. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
::::I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, but I'm not convinced. However, I am a bit worn out and don't have much new to say. So, here is a proposed wording that eliminates the conflicted phrase, which I think goes further than we need to and is a bit editorializing/OR. I am giving in on the terms you want:{{quote|The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)}}
:::::I have no idea why you would try to avoid including ''who'' these folks are trying to "support". The claim that it's OR is false, I just provided you with some references, which makes it far more referenced than anything in your attempt. ("People? How do we know it's just for people? Where's your source that they don't support bears and trees trying to avoid same-sex attraction.") Your version stripped of that qualifies chemistry.com and Russian Bride services as part of the ex-gay movement, because they support people in attempts to enter into a heterosexual relationship. -[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::Still not in agreement but will concede anyway:{{quote|The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship.}}
::::::Other than a word addition (their) and a punctuation change (minus a comma), I believe that gives you everything you wanted. And, just to be clear, I don't mean that snidely.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. That would be fine with me. Art? Anyone else? --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::And in it has been put. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

== Reordering lead ==

I wanted to wait until we'd worked out the opening of the lead before addressing the order. I don't think the order now flows well. Generally, I think terms should be defined up front, so I'd like to put the term "ex-gay" after the description of the ex-gay movement itself and moved one sentence about ex-gays into the ex-gay paragraph. Also, I think the paragraph about the organizations in the movement belongs with the opening because the organizations are the movement. So, here is the proposed new wording (leaving out references and wikilinks). I haven't changed anything but the order:
<blockquote>The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship. Ex-gay organizations began in the U.S. with Evangelical Christians, but have since spread to include Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious groups in several countries.</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Ex-gay" is a term used to describe persons who were once considered to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who no longer assert that identity. When the term was introduced to professional literature in 1980, E. Mansell Pattison defined it as describing a person who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation." Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, has distanced himself from the term's usage, because he believes "We are all so much more than our sexual expressions." Ex-gays are considered a protected class in Washington DC after a court order.</blockquote>

<blockquote>There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.</blockquote>

I'm tempted but will resist second-guessing how editors will respond to this proposal. Instead, I'll just wait for the comments.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:I don't have time to do a full look at this at the moment, but if you look back a couple of talk headers to the one marked "History", you'll find that the sentence you've moved into second place is one that there is recent concern about it's accuracy. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
::I agree that's an issue, but with or without that sentence (or some rewording of it), what do you think of the proposed order?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm under the weather, having trouble concentrating, can't give this the thought it deserves, probably for a couple days. i encourage others to do so. ---[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
::::I hope you feel better.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm back, at least mostly. Launching in: in terms of flow, even if it wasn't for the accuracy problems, I don't think what you've placed at the second sentence should go there. I think what is now the second paragraph gets more to the point of explaining what we're talking about, rather than some of the vagaries of the histories of the organizational side of the movement. The E. Mansell Pattison sentence needs some reworking to match source, but the placement is fine. The last two sentences in that paragraph should probably be cut; the Chambers sentence is his talking about himself, which might have a place in a full discussions of terminology but doesn't rise to the level that makes it vital stuff for the intro. The Washington DC sentence deals with one relatively small jurisdiction (in terms of the world scope of this) and doesn't give a sense of how that is relevant to or compares to the larger picture (if there were, say, a lot of relevant cases in other jurisdictions where discriminating against professed ex-gays were ruled as legal, that would be a different matter.) So my suggestion is to kill the last sentence of the first 'graf, and the last two sentences of the second 'graf, and merge 'em into one paragraph.
:::::With the third paragraph, I'd kill the first three words, especially since it's not up against any historical discussion. "There is" just mean that we're describing a current situation, and "now" just means that we're describing a current situation, and then we make a statement in the present tense, which means we're describing a current situation. Can kill a few redundant words further in that sentence, to: ''A large body of research indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.'' That should leave us with a leaner but, I think, useful intro. (I like an intro that one can read and - while not feeling like there's nothing left to learn - feel like one has a good grasp on what was said there without further reading.) --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Okay, I think I agree with everything you've said (ain't that remarkable?). Does this wording conform to your thoughts:
<blockquote>The ex-gay movement consists of people and organizations that support people who are conflicted over their same-sex attraction or activities in their attempts to refrain from pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship. "Ex-gay" is a term used to describe persons who were once considered to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who no longer assert that identity. When the term was introduced to professional literature in 1980, E. Mansell Pattison defined it as describing a person who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation."</blockquote>

<blockquote>A large body of research evidence indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. </blockquote>

Only thing I wasn't sure about was whether the last sentence should be in its own paragraph, but because it provides some counterweight, making it a little more prominent is probably good.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:That's good to hear that you concur. I think the one point I miscommunicated was that I was only talking of shortening the first sentence of the final paragraph, not eliminating the second. I think, given its presence in the article, it should be made clear that there is some objection to the movement's goal (the first sentence of the paragraph establishes reason for an objection, but the second establishes that there are counter-movement forces.) I'll work on the Pattison line later; the corrections it calls for are not anything that the current discussion hinges on. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::There's no problem. The elimination of the second sentence in the final paragraph was inadvertent. Will you make the changes, or do you want me to do them? Do we want to wait to see if anyone else wants to offer an opinion?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 22:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:::I'd say give it a day to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 22:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

== Sexual orientation change efforts section ==

Shouldn't the "Sexual orientation change efforts" section describe said efforts before it criticizes them? [[User:NYyankees51|NYyankees51]] ([[User talk:NYyankees51|talk]]) 16:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:There are a number of these problems in all sorts of similar articles... they attract all sorts of material which properly belongs in [[Homosexuality and psychology]], [[Homosexuality and Christianity]], or a similar overview article.  It's well-intentioned [[WP:COATRACK]], under the thought that we can't let a fringe view seem to be mainstream.  However, mentioning and linking to a particular view isn't advocacy, and thus yes, you're correct: in order to stay NPOV, criticism of a view or practice should only be present to counter positive exposition of that view or practice.  But fighting COATRACK with COATRACK leads to bloated articles, so I recommend that issues just be wikilinked to the big, controversy articles to avoid inconsistent-quality duplication of summaries of controversies in every related article. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

== Garbage about [[Camille Paglia]] ==

Recently somebody added [[Camille Paglia]] to the list of "people associated with the ex-gay movement." This is outrageous, and it made my blood boil when I saw it. Paglia is not associated with the ex-gay movement - she's not, that is, actually a member or a supporter of any ex-gay group, hasn't tried to change her sexual orientation to straight, and isn't working as a therapist trying to change people's sexual orientations from gay to straight. What Paglia has done is to express an OPINION about the ex-gay issue - namely, that gays can try to change and go straight if that's what they really, really want to do. The difference between expressing an OPINION like that and actually being "associated with the ex-gay movement" in the sense of being a member/supporter of an ex-gay ministry is a fundamental one, and it's propaganda to blur the line. If every person who ever expressed an opinion like that about the ex-gay issue were added to the list, it would become very long, and distort its meaning completely. I'm not going to remove Paglia from the list myself, because I suspect that if I do some person with too much time on his or her hands is immediately going to find some ridiculous reason for re-adding her, but there's no doubt at all that this garbage about her has to be removed - it's a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies about material on living people, and if I were Paglia, I'd be sending in my OTRS complaint about it now. [[User:Viramag|Viramag]] ([[User talk:Viramag|talk]]) 06:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, [[Andrew Sullivan]] has at times expressed the OPINION that gays should be allowed to try to go straight if they really want to (look it up - it's in his book ''Love Undetectable''), but he isn't on the list. I wonder why not - after all, he'd be "associated with the ex-gay movement" too if you redefine terms so that Paglia is "associated" with it just because of something she wrote. [[User:Viramag|Viramag]] ([[User talk:Viramag|talk]]) 06:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)