Talk:Ex-gay movement

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.--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. 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.--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. --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.--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. 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.--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:

1. Is there scientific proof that it is harmful or innocuous?
2. Is there scientific proof that the homosexual orientation is innate, i.e., entirely inherited and not originating during early childhood?
3. 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)?
4. 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. --Uncle Ed (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.—DVD-junkie | talk | 18:13, 14 May 2010 (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! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They are, like all SPS, reliable for what they themselves say. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they fail to back-up their claims with scientific evidence.--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? 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.^[1] Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.^[citation needed] 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.^[citation needed] 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.^[2][3][4]

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.

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. 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. --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—looks meaty enough to be included in my opinion:

• Banned Books, Chapter 2; Conservative Group Urges Libraries to Accept Collection, The Washington Post
• Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books, Fox News
• The Corrupt American Library Association Censors with Carefree Abandon, Illinois Family Institute
• 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. --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 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, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 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. 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, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• ALA's Ironic "Banned Books Week", Illinois Family Institute

There's another one. It has quotes from Judith Krug that may be directly relevant. --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. --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. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 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. --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^(cites), simple counter-claim^(cites). Nothing that states they are being censored, and nothing that states (diplomatic reason). Just claim, counterclaim.

Anyway, those are my suggestions... :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 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 People associated with the ex-gay movement. In attempting to find a citation, I have found the entry (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 ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal. --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. Lionel (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. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 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".[1] Am I missing it?   Will Beback  talk  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. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. --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. Dylan Flaherty 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC) You talking to me? The 16:51 edit you mentioned was a message to another editor. --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. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 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. --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.)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 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. Dylan Flaherty 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. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? Dylan Flaherty 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. Westbender (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC) WP:AVOIDEDITWAR says, "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's 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." --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...... Westbender (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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. Lionel (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. _WM^O 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. Lionel (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. _W:M^O 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Should've cited WP:Source list. Lionel (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.STL1989 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)