Talk:Conversion therapy

Need a better reference!

I can't access Referrence #108, my computer can't find what's supposed to be on the otherside of the link. I don't want to just yank the reference? Or should I? ALso the next sentance say's that the APA is looking into the study, but the actual article is more vague, stating that the APA wouldn't comment because it's doing it's own investigation. It doesn't say if it's investigating that specific study or just researching the same subject as that study. Kairos (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

I moved the sections on conversion therapy in areas outside the US to a section at the end of the article called "World trends". As the "World trends" section states, conversion therapy outside the US largely tracks the trends occurring in the US. It does not make sense to begin the article by leaping from country to country, decade to decade, describing what has occurred and is occurring throughout the world in regards to CT. While we should get to that information at some point in the article, the article should not begin with that. We should first describe where CT originated, and what it is.

As much of CT centers in the US, it makes sense to focus on the psychoanalytical origins of CT, followed by the US history of CT (as this was the "hotbed" of such activity), followed by modern US trends (as this is where the majority of it centers), followed by world trends. You may compare the version which listed the world trends at the beginning of the article, with the version which lists the world trends at the end. Thoughts? Whatever404 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason you gave in the edit summary, "political/social trends must not be placed before discussion of the history and definition of the practice(s)", is confused and mistaken. The "World Trends" section is about the history of conversion therapy in various countries; there is no difference between this and political/social trends. That conversion therapy outside the US tends to follow trends there is not by itself a reason for shifting the sections. That conversion therapy originated in the US is factually wrong. European psychoanalysts like Felix Boehm attempted it before Americans did (see, eg, Kenneth Lewes's The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, p. 51). The 'psychoanalytic origins' of conversion therapy were in the work of Freud, who was not an American. Since you have given no satisfactory reason for your preferred arrangement of the sections, I am going to shift them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.135 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 October 2008

The version to which multiple editors have reverted does not propose that CT originated in the US. It first relates the European psychoanalysts' writings, and then moves on to more modern CT attempts in the United States. The majority of CT as we know it today centers in the United States. It is entirely reasonable to focus first on CT's psychoanalytic origins, its centrality in the United States, and then, later on the trends in the rest of the world.

And, no, the World trends section does not focus on the "history" of CT worldwide, it provides virtually unrelated snippets of information from various decades. The material is disjointed; it does not provide a clear description of CT. It is nonsensical to jump from continent to continent, decade to decade, before describing the topic of the article! The version to which multiple editors have reverted first describes the history of CT, the majority of CT activity, which happens to center in the US, and then various trends elsewhere in the world.

At the moment, is that two established editors (myself and User:Pip2andahalf) have made edits to restore the version with World trends at the end. If you wish to instate another version, I advise you to provide reasons that might convince your co-editors to agree to those edits. At the moment, there is no consensus to have the material in the order you prefer. I strongly encourage you to cease edit-warring, and to engaging in civil discussion. I have described, at length, the reasoning behind these edits. You have provided minimal explanation for your own; and instead have focused on attacking the other version. This conversation cannot move forward unless you describe the reasoning for your actions. Please provide a clear explanation of why the list of sections for various countries worldwide should come at the very beginning of the article, prior to any explanation of what CT actually is. Whatever404 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, of course the version that you reverted back to didn't say that conversion therapy originated in the United States. It was you who apparently implied that when you wrote, "We should first describe where CT originated, and what it is." Your statement that the article "first relates the European psychoanalysts' writings" is wrong. Krafft-Ebing was not a psychoanalyst. Freud is the only psychoanalyst mentioned in that section. Material about other early psychoanalysts is something that could usefully be added; Lewes is a good source.

If you have such material you could certainly bring it up in a new Talk section for discussion. Whatever404 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

World trends at the bottom works well. The information in each country is way to scatter-shot to lead the article. We should keep that section at the bottom for now, per Whatever404.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Debate

There is no reason for a separate 'political debate' section, and I have accordingly shifted its contents into US history, where they belong. The section was misleading because it starts, 'Conversion therapy has become highly politicized, and the ensuing debates "have obscured the scientific data by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."' That, and the rest of the information in that section, was misleading, because it makes it sound as though it were about political debate in all countries, whereas it in fact applies only to the US. I don't think there is any reason why my edit should be undone, but if someone absolutely insists on doing that, the section should be retitled. It is just as wrong to call it simply 'Political debate' as it would be to call 'Legal status in the US' simply 'Legal status.' It has to be perfectly clear what exactly it is about.

Since no one has responded to the argument given by the editor above, I presume that there are no serious objections or counter-arguments. If no one objects soon, I will make this change. Devil Goddess (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I am going to merge the sections. Devil Goddess (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Krafft-Ebing

I am considering deleting the brief mention of Krafft-Ebing in this article, although I am not yet sure this is the right thing to do. It contains information about Krafft-Ebing listing homosexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis, and his views on what causes it. This is not information specifically about conversion therapy, although it can be argued that it provides added context. I think it should definitely stay if Krafft-Ebing's views influenced the development of conversion therapy, but I confess that I'm not sure about this. Sources are needed. Unless someone can add something about how Krafft-Ebing influenced conversion therapy, it is perhaps dubious to mention him here. Devil Goddess (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Explain removal of material from article

I have removed the following text from this article, "Individuals who feel conversion therapy has been helpful have protested the policies of the APA, stating that their views on issues such as the immutability of homosexuality have caused real harm to real people and patients." The source of this is an article from CNSNews.com, currently available here. The part of the article there that presumably is supposed to support this claim is the following observations by Randy Thomas, ""As a former homosexual, when I was involved in the 1980s promoting the gay agenda, our only focus was to seek tolerance," Thomas said, "whereas today's political activism has moved from true tolerance into political domination and power. It's an amazing thing to watch a group that said they were oppressed become oppressors."" Note that Thomas does not say that he changed from homosexuality through therapy, or that say that he thought conversion therapy helped him. Devil Goddess (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is Unbalanced

This article contains a wealth of information on mainstream mental health organizations' perspectives on conversion therapy. However, its coverage of pro-conversion-therapy perspectives is deficient. In particular, there is a large section devoted to mainstream criticism of conversion therapy, with only a tiny subparagraph containing the responses of pro-conversion-therapy organizations and individuals and no mention of the substantial questions that have been raised about the basis for the mainstream organizations' stance. Also, the section on effectiveness gives short shrift to pro-conversion therapy perspectives. Much of the article reads like a defense of the mainstream perspective on conversion therapy, rather than an even-handed explanation of all sides of the issue. I do not believe this is appropriate, especially given that the article is supposed to be about conversion therapy. Perhaps there should be a separate article on mainstream mental health organizations' opposition to conversion therapy. BSOR (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Following your suggestion would give undue weight to the minority opinions that exist in suport of conversion therapy. We aren't here to provide balance, we just let the facts speak for themselves. ANd the facts are that most of the metal health industry is agianst conversion therapy. Kairos (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kairos, I would respectfully suggest that you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that Wikipedia is supposed to let the facts speak for themselves. On the other hand, you are concerned about giving "undue weight" to the minority opinions in support of conversion therapy. Acknowledging that multiple perspectives exist does not give "undue weight" to anything. An article about conversion therapy include all of the facts on conversion therapy -- not just the majority perspective of the mental health establishment. I maintain that the article is grossly unbalanced. BSOR (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does give the different perspectives. Of course the pro-conversion side will raise question about the consensus just like ID supporters raise question about the consensus on evolution. Some the pro-conversation therpy is not supported by the mainstream scientific community then it gets the short end (See WP:DUE). 207.118.232.73 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As the guy above me pointed otu we already do give different perspectives, my concern about undue weight relates to your comment about giving them an "equal" amount of coverage which would NOT be letting the facts speak for themselves. Kairos (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I'm confused by this sentence:

In 1998, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement opposing any treatment which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that a person should change their orientation, but did not have a formal position on other treatments that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean - wouldn't a "treatment ... based upon the assumption that ... a person should change their orientation" automatically be an "attempt to change a person's sexual orientation"? What did the APA actually say? Graymornings_(talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pathologizing

An editor reverted one of my edits; she stated that the word "pathologizing" for a psychoanalytic approach that held that homosexuality was an illness was not neutral. That is wrong in my view. Obviously, if the theory is that homosexuality is an illness, then it is pathologizing homosexuality. Born Gay (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good place to bring this. Whomever reads this should see also User talk:Born Gay for brief conversation. WordyGirl90 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it again. I maintain that the word is clearly POV in this context. My edits have kept the meaning of the sentence the same while removing the strident tone.

74.70.44.210 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)