Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-04/Conversion therapy

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Conversion therapy
Status	Closed
Request date	21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Hyper3 not sure what to put here...
Mediator(s)	The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)
Comment	Parties have consented to mediation, requesting statements. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Conversion therapy

Who is involved?

• User:Hyper3
• User:Joshuajohanson

What is the dispute?

There is disagreement over the neutrality of Conversion therapy.

What would you like to change about this?

We need to establish whether the page should include the views of adherents, as well as opponents.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the conversation on the talk page, and coach all of those involved how better to conduct their discussion and editing, so that the page can reflect its subject better, and keep to wikipedia policy.

Mediator notes

Have you notified all parties involved in this dispute of the request for help from MedCab? If so, and they agree to mediation, I am willing to accept this case. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 19:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to help. Its been a while since I requested this, and things have moved on a bit, but it would be great to have some comment on how wikipedia policy applies here. Hyper3 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There still are major problems with the ex-gay section. I would really appreciate it if you would accept this case. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that mediation wasn't really necessary, but looking at talk:conversion therapy, it appears that it probably is. I agree with Hyper3 that comment on how policy applies would be helpful - especially clarification on WP:NOR. BG 22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article, but I'm interested in the outcome of this mediation.--Boweneer (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, somehow this page slipped off my Watchlist. Anyway, now that both parties have consented we can begin. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agenda

1. Determine the relevance, wording and weight for the ex-gay sex scandals
2. Determine the relevance, wording and weight for APA statements
3. Determine the relevance, wording and weight for Ex-gay statements about themselves
4. Determine scope and relationship of CT and SOCE articles.

Administrative notes

Okay, to begin with, I would like both parties to offer one paragraph summarizing their position on the issue at hand. Once we can agree on what the real problem is, we can begin working out our differences. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hyper3

Conversion therapy is a term that describes therapeutic attempts to affect sexual behaviour, mostly but not always acknowledging sexual orientation as its focus. Because of the conflicted nature of the field, adherents redefine their terms regularly, and conversion therapy is just one of the terms used (including reparative therapy which the article acknowledges as an alternative). By restricting the page to descriptions that use the term "conversion therapy" Born Gay has in an unwarranted way, contracted the discussion: it is a term used overwhelmingly by opponents. In fact, the page should represent properly the views of those who believe that sexual practice and orientation is not fixed. This is a minority and dissenting view held mainly by conservative Christians, representing an alternative tradition in addressing the issue of "unwanted same-sex attraction." Wikipedia policy states "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." Currently, the minority viewpoint receives very little space. Conversion therapy should be considered a description, not a technical term, especially as it has not been used universally and is of fairly recent origin. All synonyms of conversion therapy should be permitted interchangeably. In a separate issue, a new page entitled "sexual orientation change efforts" is being proposed with the idea that conversion therapy could be a linked page in order to get round the difficulties presented by Born Gay's unwillingness to accept other terms with a similar semantic range, but Born Gay continues to oppose this page without warrant. I do not believe that the practice of offering therapy to those who are distressed by feelings of same-sex attraction should be presented free of criticism; I just don't believe that it should be systematically removed and called a "fringe theory" on the very page that is meant to describe its nature. Hyper3 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Born Gay

My position on the Conversion therapy article is that, as far as possible, it needs to be based upon reliable sources that discuss "Conversion therapy", using that specific term. Such sources take an overwhelmingly negative view of attempts to change sexual orientation. If the article reflects them accurately, it will, obviously, present Conversion therapy in an extremely negative way. My attempts to add these sources to the article have lead to accusations, from Joshuajohanson in particular, that I am editing in a POV way, when all I am trying to do is to accurately reflect the fact that reliable sources are overwhelmingly critical of conversion therapy. Examples of this include, but are certainly not limited to, the fact that they connect it with Christian fundamentalism, and that they present sexual abuse as one of the dangers of ex-gay ministries. Efforts have been made to censor these facts from the article. BG talk 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies that apply here:

WP:NPOV: Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias

WP:V: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

WP:OR:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

WP:POVFORK (guideline): Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

Statement by Joshua Johanson

I think the article should accurately discuss the POV of the mainstream medical association, conversion therapists, and opponents of CT and accurately contribute sentiments to the proper sources. On the talk page, I discussed several problems with the article, including (1) The ex-gay section does not reflect the mainstream view of ex-gay groups, (2) Does not discuss self-determination with the same weight that medical organization do, (3) Does not mention related or alternative approaches, (4) Does not accurately present the POV of conversion therapists, (5) Mostly focuses on POV of America, and does not present a world-wide view, (6) Does not present the antecdotal evidence of cures which the APA discusses.

I have not tried to censure thing. My argument with BG's addition was not that the information was incorrect, or should not be included, but that if it is included, it should be balanced so that the paragraph correctly reflects mainstream medical view of ex-gay organizations. He would not allow balancing information, so that is why I suggested that it be taken out. The sexual abuses are a danger of ex-gay groups, but should not be given the prominence it has. It would be like giving a summary of the Catholic Church saying "The Catholic Church is an organization known for its priests having sex with its alter boys." It may be true, but it is hardly a neutral summary, and ignores other aspect of the Catholic Church. He relies heavily on an old document with a negative slant, and will not allow mainstream sources in. I am not trying to censure anything, just provide balance.

I also think related information should be included. Many people who seek out conversion therapy are seeking help. Either they are married and are seeking to improve/save their marriage, are deeply religious people who want a resolution between their faith and sexuality, or are simply unsatisfied with their lifestyle and want a change, much like a straight person who is compulsively addicted to straight sex may seek help to change their lifestyle. There are solutions that are approved by the mainstream medical associations for these problems. Reading the article now is just depressing and hopeless for these people. I know that technically isn't a concern for Wikipedia, but I think the standpoint of medical organization should be clear. They aren't against people trying to be faithful in a marriage, in a religion, or even wanting to change behaviors to decrease disease. They are against therapists making the problem worse by making them feel bad for having a homosexual orientation to begin with, giving patients false hopes of change in sexual orientation, or targeting people who do not want to change sexual orientation. I think it should be clear what they are against and what they are not and what the recommended solution should be. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Alright, I have statements from each of you. From what I gather, you disagree over what the article should be about: the practice commonly referred to as "conversion therapy" (which may or may not have other names), or the specific practice of conversion therapy. I'm operating off the assumption that both of you want an article that is neutral, verifiable, comprehensive, and all those other wonderful things that Wikipedians tend to want. Taking Hyper3's statement at face value, I suspect that both practices are the same thing, and that many pro-CT sources use different terms for the same process, while most anti-CT sources use that term. So, we're left with a few different ways to resolve this conflict:

1. Make the CT article about the practice using only the term "conversion therapy" and put everything else into a different article, something more generally about changing sexual orientation.
2. Make this article about the practice that is commonly referred to as CT, even though some sources use their own POV terms. This is similar to using sources that refer to "marriage equality" in the article Same-sex marriage, i.e. using the commonly accepted term instead of the POV term proponents use when it is clear they refer to the same thing.
3. Do the above solution, but also add a section about uses of different terms. This only applies if a source exists that discusses the different names used, which I think we could probably find. Opinions? Remember, keep it civil. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 01:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that the third solution would be the best, but that relies on a few things. First, it has to be clear in the sources used that they are referring to the practice commonly known as Conversion Therapy. Second, that sources exist discussing the actual terms used.

I don't think that there is any way to guarantee that Conversion therapy is free from original research except to base it on sources that specifically say they're discussing "conversion therapy", whatever they understand that to be, which can and does vary. There is no single definition of "Conversion therapy" (I am aware of seven different definitions, and I would not be surprised to find that there were more). This being the case, conversion therapy defined broadly as including all change methods and conversion therapy defined more narrowly are by no means necessarily the same thing. The first of the three options you describe is the only way I can think of to write the article, if I understand what you are suggesting correctly. I honestly don't think that the second or third options are viable, but I'm not 100% sure exactly what you are proposing and some further clarification would help. BG

talk 03:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you refer to Hyper3's comments, I will say something about them. Hyper3 states that, "Conversion therapy is a term that describes therapeutic attempts to affect sexual behaviour, mostly but not always acknowledging sexual orientation as its focus." That is an entirely novel definition, one I've never seen before, and I don't think there is any reliable source that supports it. Hyper3 is correct that the term "Conversion therapy" is used mostly by opponents of change attempts. He is wrong that the Conversion therapy article is "specifically about a minority viewpoint" - it is about therapeutic or quasi-therapeutic practices, not the collection of views the practices are based upon or which are used to try to justify them. Since the term "Conversion therapy" is used mainly by opponents of change attempts, it is inevitable that an article about such attempts will describe them in an extremely negative way if based only or mainly upon sources that use that term. I'm opposed to conversion therapy, so that suits me fine. However, I also believe that editing the article that way is the right thing to do in terms of Wikipedia policy, so I would support it regardless of my personal POV.

I completely disagree with Hyper3's view that, "All synonyms of conversion therapy should be permitted interchangeably" - that would utterly confuse things. I consider that a separate Sexual orientation change efforts article is a mistake, but I am not trying to single-handedly stop anyone from turning that redirect into an article, as Joshuajohanson has said he will do. It should be returned to a redirect when and if there is consensus for that. BG talk 03:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that we need to present it in a negative way, but we also need need to present it in a positive way. We need to present it in every significant way, and that is the core of our NPOV policy. If opponents use one term, and proponents use a different term for the same thing, then we call it by the more commonly known, which is CT. That doesn't mean we can only use sources that specifically use the term we choose, and to interpret it like that is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of policy. What matters as far as sourcing is what they refer to, not the name they use for it. To do anything else would result in a very biased article, in this case. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's important to realize that there is absolutely no consistency in how terms are used. Sometimes opponents use terms that are different from those of supporters, but sometimes they don't. I have no idea what term is most common - Conversion therapy isn't necessarily a more common term than reparative therapy, which is the term supporters of change attempts often (but not always) use for what they do, if it's talk therapy. There's no way of telling consistently what is the same thing and what isn't; to some extent that's a matter of opinion. So unfortunately, the issue can't be resolved in the way you suggest. BG talk 04:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What if we had a section discussing the different names used for the process? Similar to Same-sex marriage#Etymology and terminological useage. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I added such a section some time ago. See Conversion therapy#Terminology. BG talk 04:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then if you already addressed the naming issue, I don't see what the problem is. If a source uses "conversion therapy" then that's fine. If it uses "reparative therapy" then that's fine too, since the article establishes that they're essentially talking about the same thing and are interchangeable. In the aritcle itself, CT should be used wherever possible (i.e. anywhere not in quotes) for consistency, but I fail to see the problem with using sources that give an alternate term. Maybe you could help me understand the issue better? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does not establish that conversion therapy and reparative therapy are the same thing. There is no way to do that, because there is no agreement among reliable sources about whether they are the same thing or not. According to some sources, they are the same. According to others, reparative therapy is only one subtype of conversion therapy. The background to the particular dispute that started this mediation was Hyper3's attempt to add a pro-ex-gay source (a book by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse) to the article - even though its authors specifically stated that in their view ex-gay ministries are not a type of conversion therapy. The article as currently written describes ex-gay ministries only from the point of view of those sources that do describe them as conversion therapy, and those sources take a consistently negative view of them. Hence the dispute. BG talk 04:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If a source explicitly says that its not conversion therapy, then it probably shouldn't be used. If they just use a different term, then its probably alright. We should have sources from pro-ex-gay and anti-ex-gay though, for neutrality. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 05:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to elaborate on the reasons why you consider it OK to use a source that doesn't specifically say that it's about conversion therapy. You've suggested that this doesn't matter so long the source does talk about conversion therapy. The problem with this approach is, surely, that it's not up to editors to decide what conversion therapy is or is not. We aren't able to settle that issue, and it would breach WP:NOR to try. I strongly doubt that there are any pro-ex-gay sources that would be appropriate for the article. BG talk 05:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think its alright for the same reasons sources discussing "marriage equality" are okay in an article about "same-sex marriage": because they're talking about the same thing. We simply can't have an article that presents only one point of view, even if that POV is the one you agree with, so we'll have to use the best we can find. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 05:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The same thing? No one has any justification for concluding that anything to do with changing homosexuality must be the same thing as conversion therapy because there is no agreement what conversion therapy is. The disagreements tend not to be over secondary points of detail, but over its fundamental, basic definition. If you can't see that, then it's not likely that you will be able to conduct a successful mediation. The situation is totally different from same-sex marriage, where, regardless of whether people are for it or against it, there's no ambiguity about what it is. Note that there is no one point of view among sources that use the term conversion therapy - but it certainly is critical in most cases. BG talk 06:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm clearly in a different time zone; the discussion so far is very helpful. Thanks for both your input. BG has made his case clearly, and its this: "to decide that the synonyms of conversion therapy truly are synonyms involves an exercise of the mind that amounts to original research." If he is right, then we have no option but to produce separate articles about each term. If he is wrong, then we are able to include in one article all therapies that attempt the same thing, even if they also try to distance themselves from conversion therapy by coining new terms.Hyper3 (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that all the different meanings of "Conversion therapy" are necessarily synonyms. Rather the opposite, in fact. Synonyms are different terms that all mean basically the same thing. "Conversion therapy" is a single term that can mean any of several significantly different things. BG talk 07:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But we are literally talking semantics here! If you prefer, we can say that the meanings of several terms share aspects of their semantic range with conversion therapy. Hyper3 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is a relatively recent term, yet BG uses it in both a contemporary setting, and to describe historical SOCE because he believes he has sources that also make that move. Recently, he found a source suggesting SOCE and reparative therapy were the same. What is the difference? Why can we use conversion therapy for practices that occurred before the term was coined, and yet not for practices that are contemporary with the term, and have some grounds for equivalency? Hyper3 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be that "the meanings of several terms share aspects of their semantic range with conversion therapy", but that still doesn't seem like a good reason for putting everything to do with changing homosexuality into the Conversion therapy article. In using the term "Conversion therapy" to refer to older attempts to change homosexuality, I'm following the usage in reliable sources, such as Kenji Yoshino's article "Covering." The difference is simply that reliable sources (and Wikipedia's content policies) support doing the former but not the latter. BG talk 07:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problem we have is when BG sets one wikipedia policy against another. He wants us to choose between WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It is original research to use other definitions, yet it is clear that the article will therefore not be neutral. Is it the case that in other parts of wikipedia, wikipedians are choosing between neutrality and original research, and the whole project is doomed? (Do you like the note of drama that I have introduced?) Or is it rather the case, that sensible people are quite capable of telling the difference between the use of definitions which share the same meanings without it being WP:OR. Hyper3 (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, I think you have seen the problem we are having. I am happy to go with any solution that you offer, and agree with your preferred outcome. Hyper3 (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to set Wikipedia policies against each other. I realize it might look that way. You write, "It is original research to use other definitions, yet it is clear that the article will therefore not be neutral." Well it certainly won't be "neutral" in the sense of suggesting that pro-conversion therapy and anti-conversion therapy views are equally valid or giving them remotely equal space or anything of that kind, but it should still be in accord with WP:NPOV. "Neutrality" doesn't necessarily mean on Wikipedia what it means off Wikipedia. That's true of many words. BG talk 07:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am only asking for wikipedia policy to be adhered to: not special pleading for my point of view. I recognise wikipedia as a "world between worlds" to use C S Lewis's idea, where we are trying to represent everyone well and with due weight. There's no way that wikipedia will offer the Christian tradition's approach equal time given liberal humanist ascendancy in this area; however it may well be able to offer it some respect, by portraying it accurately. Then all parties can continue to have the debate in an informed way: this process of information being the point of the encyclopaedia project. I believe that different ethical standpoints are truly incommensurable, and that the virtue ethics of the Christian tradition are considerably different to the rights based approach that characterises much of the talk about sexual orientation. Yet it needs to be described well so that difference isn't misinterpreted as prejudice. Hyper3 (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all very nice, but it's getting us off the main point. BG talk 08:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought the main point was neutrality, hence above monologue. Sorry if I am boring you! Hyper3 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:TPA - (the perfect article) and noticed one of the criteria: "is not a dictionary article as it is not about a word and how it is used; it is about an idea, which it explores thoroughly." I think we have strayed towards dictionary definitions, and away from ideas. Hyper3 (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindented)BG has said he will not try to stop us from working on the Sexual orientation change efforts page nor will he revert the creation of the page. He is confident that eventually the consensus will be to redirect it, while I am confident that will not happen. Other editors have agreed to the page, and it had already been decided that the new page would be created today, and I created it before I read the discussion here. We will see what other editors have to say about the page. For me, the creation of the SOCE page solves a number of issues, but not all of them. For the record, I personally do not think SOCE and CT are synonyms. SOCE includes all efforts, were it seems that CT only includes therapies. For example, some churches use exorcism as an attempt to change sexual orientation, whereas no one would classify exorcism as a type of CT. Bringing it back to the topic of which sources to include, let us take a specific example - the ex-gay section. No ex-gay group claims to perform therapy, and most specifically make clear that they do not offer to perform therapy. Some even warn that therapy will not change sexual orientation. However, a 1991 document by Haldeman refers to them as a type of conversion therapy, so there is a section on ex-gay groups. I think that if we are going to discuss ex-gay groups at all, it should be neutral. However, BG does not allow sources from mainstream medical organizations to be included because they do not specifically refer to them as conversion therapy. We are talking about the same entities. I think either ex-gay groups should not be considered a type of CT, and should only be briefly mentioned so as to explain its connection to conversion therapy, or all sources that talk about ex-gay groups should be allowed, whether or not they specifically use the term "conversion therapy" to refer to these groups. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3: Talking about neutrality is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a dispute. We need to discuss the specifics of how to resolve that. There's no agreement about what "Conversion therapy" is as an idea, so saying that the article is about an idea not a dictionary definition does not settle the issue. Joshuajohanson: I'm not going to return Sexual orientation change efforts back to a revert right away, but I have every intention of seeing it returned to being one over the longer term. That article is dreadful, in my opinion, and I doubt much can be done to improve it. You say that Conversion therapy only includes therapies. There is, once again, no agreement what it does or doesn't include. Adding sources to the ex-gay section that do not consider ex-gay treatment a kind of conversion therapy would undermine the article's neutrality, not enhance it. I'm not seeing any new arguments here that might make me reconsider my position on this. BG talk 03:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So what i'm seeing is that we have an article on topic X. Some sources say Y and Z are a part of X, while others say they aren't, and there is no consensus in the academic community on precisely how to define X. To me, the solution seems to be to write a section in article X about how there is controversy over what constitutes X, and that some believe Y and Z are examples of X and some believe they aren't X. The only other thing I can up with is that we shouldn't have an article on X if we have no idea what X actually is. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume that this is not an uncommon problem? Every word has its range of meanings, and every concept has its debates. The point of an encyclopaedia is to transcend such matters. BG's solution is to cut the gordian knot by making a move to restrict definition: perhaps we should make the opposite move by using a more widely couched term like Sexual orientation change efforts and decide conversion therapy is unhelpful terminology. Whatever we do, it should be to describe the field, not circumscribe it. Hyper3 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. SOCE is more clearly defined than CT. Sexual orientation change efforts defines itself - the collection of efforts to change sexual orientation. Conversion therapy can focus on the type of therapy that is universally accepted as conversion therapy, such as Nicolosis' methods. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So you both feel that the CT article should be about the ones universally accepted as CT, while SOCE can be a parent article encompassing the ones where the term is disputed? It sounds interesting, but I'm curious to hear what Born Gay thinks about that as a workable solution. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 17:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much what we are saying, but with a minor difference. SOCE not only encompasses the ones where the term is disputed, but also other methods which are clearly not conversion therapy, and of course summarizes conversion therapy methods with a link to the main article. For example, the lead talks about religious methods, but I have not yet written a section on that. I highly doubt anyone would classify a church as a conversion therapist. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to settle disputes, then having a separate Sexual orientation change efforts article may not be a bad thing - as a temporary measure. If Hyper3 and Joshuajohanson want to improve that article, then let them try by all means. Ultimately, I think it will come to nothing, the article will be returned to a redirect, and we will then be back where we started, arguing at Conversion therapy. If things come to that, then a new and more formal mediation may be required. BG talk 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that Sexual orientation change efforts cannot be a parent article to Conversion therapy, because despite what Joshuajohanson is saying it's not at all clear that Sexual orientation change efforts is a broader category than Conversion therapy - it depends which of several incompatible definitions you use. BG talk 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in more than a temporary measure. I don't understand why you don't think conversion therapy is an attempt to change sexual orientation. Are there types of conversion therapy that don't try to change sexual orientation? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Having a separate Sexual orientation change efforts article, whether it proves to be permanent or (hopefully) temporary, solves some of the disputes at Conversion therapy, or at least postpones them until some time in the future. That's a good thing in itself. If there are still disagreements about the Conversion therapy article, now is the time to discuss them - that's what the mediation is about, after all, not the Sexual orientation change efforts page. I have updated the Theories and techniques section of the article without waiting for discussion because, in my opinion, now that there seems to be agreement that Conversion therapy should as far as possible be based upon sources that use the term "Conversion therapy", there's no reason not to update it using one of the writers (Haldeman) who does use that term. The material I've added could be better written, but I've decided not to let that stop me, because even though the style of the writing could be improved it is still actually better than some other parts of the article, including the History section. BG talk 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay, I'm curious as to why you don't want to have the SOCE article. You have said more than once that you want it turned back into a redirect, but I haven't seen any real argument behind it. I'm sure you do have a reason, but it would help all of us if you would tell us precisely what your problem is with a SOCE article. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 02:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to explain what my reasons were, but Joshuajohanson and Hyper3 are obviously approaching this issue from a very different point of view and didn't really understand what I argued. Or maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. In any case, I gave my reasons at talk:Sexual orientation change efforts. The basic problem I see with Sexual orientation change efforts as an article is that, despite assertions to the contrary, it's not really a separate subject in its own right. It's more like a different term for what is more often called Conversion therapy, although one can't definitively say that that is what it means either. It scarcely makes sense to have a separate article about it when there is no guarantee in reliable sources that it is actually a separate subject.BG talk 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think I understand your position a bit better now. Unfortunately, it leads me to another contradiction. You say here that you believe that sources don't say definitively that they are separate topics, so they can't be in separate articles. Yet above, I believe you say that you don't believe they are the same thing, so they can't be in the same article. So, where would you put all of this information?

The way I see the relationship between the two articles, CT is specifically about CT, and the sources used call it CT. SOCE is more of an umbrella article that encompasses CT (for example, with a summary section that has {{mainarticle|Conversion therapy}} at the top), but also covers exorcisms and other things that are part of an effort to change sexual orientation, but not necessarily CT. Does that make sense? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

None of these terms are properly defined. SOCE is a phenomenon that would have to overlap at least partially with Conversion therapy according to almost any definition of the latter; according to the broadest definition of Conversion therapy (which would correspond to how the term is most often used in popular discussion, but not necessarily in most reliable sources) they would indeed be the same thing. Yet it's also a plausible interpretation that they are distinct, and that Conversion therapy is one type of SOCE. We should not pretend that we know exactly how the APA thinks these terms should be used; having a separate Sexual orientation change efforts article implies that we know it is different from Conversion therapy, and that's one of several reasons I have a problem with it.

You suggest that the information on SOCE has to be somewhere, but I'm more concerned with avoiding the original research dangers that nearly any effort to present that information would involve. I realize that this position is getting little support, which is why I'm reluctantly conceding that Sexual orientation change efforts has to remain a distinct article for the moment. BG talk 06:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, SOCE being a more general term than Conversion therapy would be true on only one interpretation of what Conversion therapy is. Douglas Haldeman's definition of Conversion therapy, which appears to be the earliest one, would be about as general as SOCE, but the American Psychiatric Association and other bodies have given several much narrower definitions. BG talk 06:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm - could you comment on BG's continued emphasis on certainty - as if the only thing that mattered is finding a source with a definition clause. Is it not the case that in all significant areas of social science we have fundamental debates about meaning? The role of the encyclopedia is to note this, not to enter into the fray. BG calls noting the diverse players and concepts original research; yet this obviously compromises neutrality. It is my contention that BG's position might also be called original research, as he is imposing an alien and disruptive standard. Hyper3 (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now really, is that a nice thing to say? All I'm doing is pointing out that the issue of how to present information about SOCE is inherently problematic. If you do one thing, it's possible original research and therefore a problem, if you do the opposite thing, it's still possible original research and therefore a problem. It's precisely because an encyclopedia shouldn't entry the fray that I'm stressing the importance of this issue. I don't see any "alien and disruptive standard" in what I'm saying. BG talk 08:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Its clear you don't see it; hence this process. If you imposed the same standard on the rest of wikipedia it would grind to a halt. What you call original research cannot possibly be so. This is the core of our disagreement. If Firestorm is able to offer any comment on this, it would be helpful. Hyper3 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, the other problem is that I don't see any point in continuing with this whilst BG continues to edit in an inflammatory way: please see this. He shows no intention of resolving this dispute amicably, but continues to add material that portrays the ex-gay movement in the worst possible light, using his disruptive approach as a shield. I'm afraid we need this to be addressed if we are to continue. Hyper3 (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hyper3, I read over that diff. It's pretty inflammatory stuff, but if it's verifiable, why should that not be in the article as well as statements that some people find certain therapies effective in their lives? What I see anecdotaly and completely POV-ish, is that this is highly polarized issue between highly motivated camps: the LGBT community who has a history of mistreatment by religion and general society, and those conflicted by their disparate sexual desires and religious convictions. I haven't seen any sources that show SOCE or Conversion Therapy, however broad or narrow they are defined, is pursued by anyone other than the committed religious individuals. I can accept statements by the APA or whatever organization, that those who are so conflicted should be allowed in a free society to pursue these therapies to bring themselves relief and peace in their lives. The trouble seems to be that mainstream sources are now clearly critical of these therapies, and even though the minority viewpoint should be represented in the articles, it should be tempered by the majority opinion.--Boweneer (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem with what BG added was that he removed stuff from the APA right before making the contentious addition. Why does sensational information like 18 old documentation that talks about therapists having sex with patients need to be included, but the most recent findings from the APA task force get removed from the article with the explanation of "nonsense"? The APA task force said ex-gay groups help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation. That should be in there. The hypocrisy is that he removes anything we add without "consensus", even if it is well documented from the APA, but insists his stuff gets added, even though I, Hyper3 and Knulclunk all said that his removal of the APA source and addition of Haldeman was unwarranted.Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, I think that the APA task force statement you are referring to has not been sourced very much in the mainstream media. I personally have no problem with it being included, as long as the complete APA statement on conversion therapy is included. In brief, my POV here is that for the majority of GLBT people, conversion therapy is not a healthy option, but for those who are struggling between strong religious beliefs and same-sex attraction *should* know that option is available.

However, I think that this whole therapy is so contentious, relatively new (less than a century IMO), and supported by study results that are interpreted in diametrically opposite ways, that it is going to be very difficult IMO to find a neutral source. I think it is going to require careful review of opposing sources, careful writing, and honest acceptance of opposing viewpoints to make this article and the SOCE article encyclopedic.

I feel that the internet has matured enough that GLBT people have access to a full range of information *outside* of Wikipedia that include the bias and opinions that will support their choice regarding conversion therapy. I feel that the article itself should try to stay scholarly and reflect the history of conversion therapy, its techniques, its various modalities, statements by organizations, and a review of studies with analysis and criticism.--Boweneer (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My "nonsense" comment was a reference to the behavior of editors, not to the content added. I was not trying to suggest that I am perfect. You asked why sensational details about sex need to be included in the ex-gay section. The reason for that is that Haldeman, whose article is a reliable source, discusses them and clearly considers them relevant. Haldeman's view of ex-gay groups is relevant because he considers them Conversion therapy; the new APA report does not consider them to be conversion therapy but SOCE, and is thus irrelevant. Conversion therapy is not the SOCE article. BG talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, since you mention that you, Hyper3, and Knulclunk didn't want Haldeman added, let's keep in mind that I, Mish, and Destinero, don't seem to have a problem using Haldeman as a source. BG talk 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1

This is informal mediation, so I don't have the authority to impose any sanctions or solutions whatsoever. However, I would like to request that all parties involved here please refrain from making any substantial edits to this article while the mediation is ongoing. Reverting simple vandalism is fine, but I think anything more is going to hurt our progress here. Again, this is completely voluntary and none of you are required to accept this, but I really believe that if you do it will help us solve this issue.

As far as defining what CT is, while Haldeman may have been the first to define it, and we should make note of that, we should probably use the modern, narrow definition used by the APA and other such bodies. If we do that, there is no contradiction in the two articles, and they would work together nicely. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 19:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. You obviously have a point, so I'll refrain from making further major edits for the time being. That Haldeman was the first to define conversion therapy is probably the case (I certainly think so), but there is no proof of that, and as a matter of fact the way he writes implies that the term was already in use. Stating that he was the first to define or use the term would be unacceptable original research. With respect The Wordsmith, your comments show that unfortunately you have not really grasped the problem with defining conversion therapy - most definitions of conversion therapy, especially those from professional organizations, would tend to be narrower than Haldeman's, but that doesn't mean that they agree with each other - far from it, they often give quite different definitions. One may argue that Haldeman's views should be given less weight than those of the American Psychiatric Association and other bodies, but there is no such thing as "the modern, narrow definition used by the APA and other such bodies". BG talk 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so lets go through the sources that use narrower definitions, and we'll see if we can come up with a consensus on the scope of the CT article. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 21:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is defined by professional organizations, as "any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or 'conversion' therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation" (American Psychiatric Association), "therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation" (American Psychological Association), "counseling and psychotherapy aimed at eliminating or suppressing homosexuality" (the Just the Facts Coalition, including a long list of groups, among them the American Psychological Association but not the American Psychiatric Association). Even restricting things to statements made by professional organizations, then, it's still a jumble of different, inconsistent definitions. Notably, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association don't seem to see things the same way. BG talk 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Though they do define it differently, none of the statements mentioned above seems to include ex-gay ministries in the definition of conversion therapy in the way Haldeman does. The main statement that agrees with Haldeman on this point is Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of Ex-Gay Activism, by Jason Cianciotto and Sean Cahill. That is a statement from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, rather than from a professional body like one of the two APAs. BG talk 21:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments in this mediation confuse me. Are you in favor of having CT defined broadly or narrowly? You seem to want it both ways, and that is a contradictory position that we need to work through. It would make the most sense to me to define the scope of this article narrowly, and SOCE broadly, so that the things like ex-gay ministries that wouldn't fit here would belong there. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important in mediation to try to understand the person's point of view. So I am going to try to summarize BG's argument. BG, let me know if I am off. Your argument is that SOCE and CT might be the same thing, so they can't be separate articles, but they might not, so SOCE that is not specifically defined as CT cannot be in the CT article. It can't be on the Homosexuality and psychology page because there is already a page on CT diff (though it really isn't on the CT page either because it isn't specifically CT) BG's argument for not allowing the APA stuff in the ex-gay section is that since only Haldeman defines ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, we can only use his sources for the section and cannot include stuff from the APA, because that defines ex-gay groups as SOCE, not CT. BG, did I understand your argument correctly? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, you asked, "Are you in favor of having CT defined broadly or narrowly?" Do you mean off Wikipedia or on Wikipedia? Off Wikipedia, I would be in favour of defining it narrowly, as not including ex-gay ministries. On Wikipedia, my personal views about how conversion therapy should be defined are in no way relevant. Since there is no consistent, agreed-upon definition of conversion therapy, the Conversion therapy article should not pretend that such a definition exists. Per WP:NPOV, it needs to present the different views about what conversion therapy is, and not to impose one single, uniform definition or understanding of the subject. Frankly, if your arguments here are aimed at trying to make the opposite case, then this is all a waste of time; imposing one definition or understanding of conversion definition on the article would fundamentally violate WP:NPOV. BG talk 22:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a case for either side, as that is not my job as a mediator. However, if we want to have an article, we should have an agreement on what the scope of the article is. For this article, I think that since only one source out of many consider ex-gay groups to be CT, the full addition made based on Haldeman might be giving it undue weight for this article. It would be perfectly appropriate for the ex-gay article, though just a bit tangential to this one based on only one source that considers ex-gay ministries relevant. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the article should be whatever reliable sources define Conversion therapy as being, however inconsistently they may define it. I absolutely disagree with your suggestion that the Ex-gay section based on Haldeman is undue for the article. You might equally well argue that the material on group therapy is undue too, since statements by professional bodies don't specifically deal with it. The same argument could also be made about behavior modification, since the statements from professional bodies don't emphasize that method either - even though it happens to be historically important. The same goes for the sex therapy section about Masters and Johnson's work, although that too was historically important and influential. One could also argue against the inclusion of a section on reparative therapy, since the sources from professional organizations usually treat it as a synonym for conversion therapy and don't consider it a distinct method, although that is what people who identify themselves as practitoners of reparative therapy consider it to be. There would be no logic to removing only the ex-gay section while leaving all that other stuff intact, and it shouldn't make the least difference to whether something meets due weight if the professional organizations specifically state that the methods concerned aren't conversion therapy or if they simply don't deal with them. BG talk 07:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An additional reason why it would not be reasonable to exclude the ex-gay content is the Spitzer study. Spitzer defined reparative therapy as including ex-gay ministries. The professional bodies have stated that reparative therapy and conversion therapy are the same thing, and Spitzer's study on reparative therapy has been highly influential in the context of discussions of conversion therapy. So long as the material about the Spitzer study, which is as much about ex-gay ministries as anything else, remains in the article, surely it's clear that there is no good ground for removing the ex-gay section? BG talk 07:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my statement before: I don't think including information about ex-gay ministries is undue, just the part about the sex scandals. Including something about ex-gay ministries is entirely appropriate, since we have a source that considers it CT. However, need to think about the relevance of a few evil men to the entire field of the ex-gay "movement." Personally, I think all forms of CT are reprehensible, but including the middle paragraph there, especially in comparison to the rest of the section, is giving it too much weight. The rest of the techniques in that section include a) a description of the method, and b) an evaluation of its effectiveness/opinion in mainstream science. Ex-gay has that, but it adds information about one practitioner who was disgraced. This doesn't fit the pattern and is potentially undue. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So to rephrase, paragraphs 1 and 3 of your addition I think are fine for the article (though I wish there are more sources, but that's not a problem per se). Its just the middle one that gives too much attention to one bad person.

Haldeman, from what he wrote in the article used as a source, clearly considers sex scandals in the ex-gay movement relevant to conversion therapy. Presumably he wouldn't have discussed them if he didn't see them as relevant. He emphasizes that it wasn't only a matter of the behavior of one person, but a larger problem. He discusses two people (Colin Cook and Guy Charles) as representative of that problem. BG talk 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be argued that the third sentence of that paragraph ("Of the two clients who did not report this, one was an older man, and the other reported that the organization's founder had masturbated during a telephone counseling session with him") is undue; the rest clearly isn't. BG talk 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because a source considers something relevant doesn't mean we should as well. We don't just parrot everything a source has to say, or else Wikipedia articles would be much longer than they are now. What we do is summarize the points that are generally considered to be important. Then again, depending on the way it is presented, it may be relevant. Since I don't have the source, would you mind quoting the part where he considers it relevant, so we can evaluate the importance for ourselves? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your neutrality, I am not convinced of that. So far, your main role in the mediation appears to have been to argue against me. I have little confidence in the way you are doing things, and will request that this mediation be brought to a stop unless some real progress toward settling the disagreements is made. BG talk 07:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in accusations that I am biased against either side, and after this I will say no more about my own beliefs. As a proud gay man, I find it laughable that I am accused of taking a pro-CT stance. Really, all i'm interested in is an article that conforms to policy. And now, I will respond to no more accusations. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson: That's more or less right. I think you summarised my position pretty much accurately, although I might quibble about the details. There would probably be plenty of additional reasons for keeping SOCE that is not defined as conversion therapy out of the Conversion therapy article, for instance. I wouldn't say that Haldeman was the only source that could be used for the ex-gay section of Conversion therapy, but so far I don't see any real reason to use other sources. BG talk 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wordsmith is clearly not on anyone's side. Your dry humour makes me chuckle. Hyper3 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What Haldeman says

The Wordsmith asked me to quote the part of Haldeman's article where he discusses sex scandals. I will, and I don't apologize for the length of this quotation. In the interests of ethics, I have altered the quotation by removing the incorrect name of one of the men involved in the sex scandals provided by Haldeman, and replacing it with the correct name. The surname of this individual is therefore placed within brackets. I have also slightly altered quotation marks. The quotation is otherwise verbatim.

"Furthermore, more than one religious group leader has 'fallen from grace' for having sex with clients who are themselves in treatment for conversion of sexual orientation. Perhaps the most notorious of these is Colin [Cook]. [Cook] is a pastor whose counseling program, Quest, led to the development of Homosexuals Anonymous, the largest antigay fundamentalist counseling organization in the world. The work of [Cook], his ultimate demise, and the subsequent cover-up by the Seventh Day Adventist church, are described by sociologist Ronald Lawson (1987). Lawson charactizes [Cook] as a troubled homosexual man who had lost a highly visible pastorate in Manhattan as a result of promiscuous homosexual behavior. Celebrating his lack of professional counseling credentials, he discovered a market for ministering to self-doubting, conflicted homosexual men. This led to his rapproachment with the Seventh Day Adventist church, and the founding of his Quest Ministries in Reading, Pennsylvania. Through the seven years' operation of his organization, approximately 200 people received 'reorientation counseling' from [Cook], his wife, and an associate. From this organization sprang Homosexuals Anonymous, a 14-step program based on Alcoholics Anonymous.

Lawson (1987), in attempting to research the efficacy of [Cook's] program, was denied access to counselees on the basis of confidentiality. Nonetheless, he managed to interview 14 clients, none of whom reported any change in sexual orientation. All but two reported that [Cook] had had sex with them during 'treatment', in the form of nude massage and mutual masturbation. The two clients excluded from this pattern of exploitation were an older man and a man who received only telephone counseling. Even the telephone counselee, however, reported that [Cook] had masturbated during a telephone counseling session.

When Lawson brought these facts to light, [Cook] resigned his ministry; the church, however, refused to acknowledge the abuses of [Cook's] 'pastoral care', or to make restitution for the damage done. Now, after what he describes as a period of his own 'successful rehabilitation', [Cook] is attempting to rejuvenate his ministry to homosexuals.

The tradition of conflicted homosexual pastors using their ministries to gain sexual access to vulnerable gay people is as long-standing as the conversion movement itself. Ralph Blair, in his 1982 monograph Ex-gay, reports on one of the first 'Ex-Gay' programs, Liberation in Jesus Christ. This program was founded by Guy Charles, who had claimed a heterosexual conversion subsequent to his acceptance of Christ; he was assisted in his ministry by a charismatic Episcopal church in Virginia. Charles was promoted through the evangelical world as no longer gay, and that God had removed 'the lusts, the desires, and the act' (Blair, 1982, p. 6). Charles's claim that homosexuality is a choice, and his plan to 'divest...homosexual desires' were called into question, however, when several who had sought the 'ex-gay' experience through Liberation in Jesus Christ complained that Charles was having sex with them in the context of the conversion 'treatments.' Blair states:

He [Charles] was telling these seekers that the homosexual experiences they were having with him were not 'homosexual' but "Jonathan and David" relationships. The seekers, many of whom were "seeking" against their own will because they had been sent to Charles by a church or their parents, were quite cooperative in such "Jonathan and David" relationships. The Episcopal Church, which housed Liberation in Jesus Christ, kicked Charles out, convinced he was a fraud. (Blair, 1982, p.7)" BG talk 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that I am not moved by the argument that, "Just because a source considers something relevant doesn't mean we should as well. We don't just parrot everything a source has to say, or else Wikipedia articles would be much longer than they are now." Considering something relevant because a source does is not the same thing as parroting "everything a source has to say." We should not be in the business of juding the importance of an issue ourselves; that has to be based on judgments in reliable sources. BG talk 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the inclusion of this WP:OR? This is obviously not therapy, but the reverse... Hyper3 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, BG. Hyper3, I think the point of including this kind of detail is that the criticism of conversion therapy and SOCE from the opposing side *includes* the suspicion that many of the men conducting these therapies are dealing with their own attraction to men, and it just seems hypocritical. Of course, what I've just written is entirely POV. But I have personal experience that supports this suspicion. In any case, I support inclusion of this information as long as the opposing information is in the article as well. For example, Joshuajohanson linked me to this interesting article [1].--Boweneer (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex-gay treatment is conversion therapy in Haldeman's view. Haldeman indicates that sexual exploitation is a risk involved with ex-gay treatment, and even that it was practiced as part of the treatment, eg, "several who had sought the 'ex-gay' experience through Liberation in Jesus Christ complained that Charles was having sex with them in the context of the conversion 'treatments.'" BG talk 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cook's actions were determined to have been "fallen from grace", not approved by Quest. He refers to having sex with clients as 'treatment' in scare quotes, indicating that he really doesn't believe it is treatment. I think it should be taken in context with other statements by Haldeman. He is in favor of conversion therapy. He stated: "For some, religious identity is so important that it is more realistic to consider changing sexual orientation than abandoning one's religion of origin... and if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged." Given the light that Haldeman is in favor of conversion therapy under certain conditions, I highly doubt that he would consider having sex with your clients as a style of conversion therapy, and from the tone of how he described the abuse, it doesn't seem like he recommends this style of 'treatment' to clients. Like I said, my biggest problem was BG's removal of the opinion of the AP task force right before adding this material. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That Quest didn't approve of Cook engaging in sexual behavior with the men he counseled is beside the point. Haldeman still points to that kind of thing as a danger of ex-gay treatment. What Haldeman says at the start of the article that quotation was taken from makes it clear that he does consider ex-gay treatment a kind of conversion therapy, and you are grasping straws by pointing to his use of scare quotes. Calling him in favour of conversion therapy is outrageous, and also possibly a BLP violation. I therefore strike that part of your comments. The new APA report is dubiously relevant, and I stand by my removal of it. BG talk 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you not editing my comments. Please change it back. I did not say he didn't consider ex-gay groups a type of conversion therapy, but that he didn't consider counselors having sex with their clients as a form of conversion therapy. Besides, a lot has changes since 1991. Many groups emphasize "reducing homosexual attractions and behaviours" rather than sexual orientation change. Plus, many have made statements that they do not offer therapy. It is unclear that Haldeman still considers ex-gay groups to be a type of CT after the changes they have undergone in the last 18 years. Heck, a lot has changed in the last three years. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about Haldeman bordered on BLP violation. If there was an article about Haldeman, and you added a statement to it that he is in favor of conversion therapy, it would be an indisputable BLP violation. I won't undo the striking, and if anything I think removing your comment completely might be a better option. Your argument that Haldeman didn't consider counselors having sex with their clients as a form of conversion therapy is worthless and irrelevant, like most of your other arguments. It's really become tedious to see you repeat it over and over again. Haldeman was careful to point out that the sexual abuse was part of the treatment. It would be a risk of the treatment even if it wasn't. BG talk 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You won't allow what the APA task force says about ex-gay groups, you won't allow the ex-gay groups themselves which say they don't perform therapy. The only thing that you have allowed so far is an 18 year old document that doesn't take into account all the changes that have been made in the last 18 years. Not allowing such crucial information is misleading. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in what you think if you cannot support your views with policy-based reasons. I think that my views are supported by the relevant content policies, so if you don't like them, too bad. BG talk 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that quote, BG. After seeing how Haldeman presents ex-gay ministries, I believe the entry about sex scandals has a place in the article. I'm sure there is a more neutral way of wording it, but the idea of presenting that information is sound. JoshuaJohnson, I see that you want the APA statement in the article. Could you tell us exactly what the APA task force says about ex-gay ministries? Depending on what they say, that information may also have a place as well. I think that if we are to have a successful mediation, we need to thoroughly examine all the sources we have available.

What problems do you see with the wording used in the article at the moment? I'm open to discussing changes, but I'm not sure what if anything is wrong with the way it currently is. BG talk 05:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that as it is, the section gives too much weight to the one case. Sex scandals deserve mentioning, but not in that level of detail. How about something like the following? "Haldeman adds that several ex-gay leaders, including the former head of Quest Ministries, have been disgraced for having sex with their clients. The founder of Quest Ministries resigned after these facts were brought to light, but later attempted to resume his ministry." The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. Haldeman spends considerable space discussing Cook, but it's likely better to discuss the sex scandals more briefly without the focus on that particular person. Something similar to the wording you propose might be used (although we do need to make clear that he mentions more than one person). BG talk 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This mediation is effectively over

I was suggesting bringing the mediation to a close because it wasn't making progress, or maybe finding a different mediator because I'm dissatisfied with The Wordsmith, but the recent behavior of Joshuajohanson and Hyper3 at Conversion therapy (for instance, stupid edits like this [2], which cut specific, sourced information from the lead and left only some vague weasel words, and this [3], removing the homophobia category without justification) shows that mediation is basically over already. It can restart, but Joshuajohanson and Hyper3 have to stop the rubbish at Conversion therapy immediately, or that isn't going to work. BG talk 01:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel like nothing is being accomplished. The next step is MedCom, but I don't think it is time to give up on this one yet. Many, if not most, mediations start off very rough. Eventually, things start getting done. Most successful mediations last weeks or months, and you just need some faith in the process.

JoshuaJohnson and Hyper3: The request I made above, right under the arbitrary section break, applies to both of you too. I request that all parties cease making substantial edits to the article without getting consensus for them here first. For this mediation to work, parties have to agree to work together and not against each other. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the editors involved here weren't going to edit the article? *blink* Those are some pretty drastic edits.--Boweneer (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation may not be beyond repair. I am prepared to give this another chance, but clearly that won't work unless further substantial editing to the article stops. I will stop as of now if Joshuajohanson and Hyper3 do likewise. BG talk 05:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I started editing again when I realised Born gay was going to carry on adding inflammatory material. The material is still there, even after it has been criticised by the wordsmith as undue. The needless disruptive standard that BG insists upon means I cannot edit the material appropriately. I'm realising that I'm not looking for mediation, but adjudication - someone to clear up some particular issues. But I'm willing to continue if the edits to the Ex-gay section that have been added since we started this mediation are removed; all further edits are by consensus only, and BG stops implying the mediator is biased. Hyper3 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you thought that I was going to "carry on adding inflammatory material" and that therefore you had to edit the article, you should have openly withdrawn from the mediation. What you call "inflammatory material" is properly sourced content critical of the ex-gay movement. If you don't like it, tough. Most of the material is not undue, and The Wordsmith now seems to agree with me about that. I do not accept your terms (removal of the ex-gay content, etc) for continuing in the mediation. BG talk 08:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have a question: if you are confident that a fair mediation would result in vindication for your views, then why insist on removal of that content now? Why have a mediation at all, if its precondition is that you get what you want? BG talk 09:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to bring balance to BG's edits. He is remodeling the whole article based off Haldeman's interpretation, and at the very least I thought it was important to bring out that Haldeman says that under the correct circumstances, CT must not be discouraged for those who are seeking it. Otherwise it completely distorts Haldeman's views. However, if BG stops editing the page, I will stop editing as well, except for things that we have come to an agreement on, such as the removal of bio-energetics. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Haldeman's interpretation" is probably why we have the term "conversion therapy" in the first place. He is one of the best sources to use. It's fair enough to mention that Haldeman thinks that people who want conversion therapy should be able to choose it, so I don't necessarily oppose that (or even mentioning it in the lead). Again, I'm perfectly happy to stop editing for now if others do likewise. BG talk 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that the issues that I have raised have been adequately dealt with and will continue. Thanks for the work done on the ex-gay section, for which I am grateful, I look forward to the change being made. Now we need to find a way of balancing what is said. Although I think that the possibility of abuse is inherent in all therapy, and therefore that the material BG has added is strictly irrelevant, I understand why he wants it in. I do think that all views need representing properly (with due weight and all that). BG has created the possibility of only representing his views by shoving everything through a Haldeman shaped sieve, which I think is both wrong and disruptive, hence this process. Hyper3 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions about the possibility of abuse being inherent in all therapy are not relevant. Saying that abuse might occur in any kind of therapy is in any case a poor reason for removing the information about sex scandals completely - articles about specific therapies need information on dangers that reliable sources have shown that those therapies involve. Views from sources that don't define ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy are of marginal relevance at best in the Converison therapy article. BG talk 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

APA view of ex-gay groups

This is what the new APA report says about ex-gay groups: [4]

• Both sexual-minority-affirming and ex-gay mutual help groups potentially appear to offer benefits to their participants that are similar to those claimed for self-help groups, such as social support, fellowship, role models, and new ways to view a problem through unique philosophies or ideologies. Mutual help groups’ philosophy often gives a normalizing meaning to the individual’s situation and may act as an “antidote” to a sense of deficiency.
• Increasing social support through psychotherapy, self-help groups, or welcoming communities (ethnic communities, social groups, religious denominations) may relieve some distress. For instance, participants reported benefits from mutual support groups, both sexual-minority affirming and ex-gay groups. These groups counteracted and buffered minority stress, marginalization, and isolation.
• Ponticelli (1999), and Wolkomir (2001) described these religiously-oriented ex-gay groups as a refuge for those who were excluded both from conservative churches and from their families, because of their same-sex sexual attractions, and from gay organizations and social networks, because of their conservative religious beliefs.
• Erzen observed that such groups built hope, recovery, and relapse into an ex-gay identity, thus expecting same-sex sexual behaviors and conceiving them as opportunities for repentance and forgiveness.
• Ponticelli and Wolkomir found several emotional and cognitive processes that seemed central to the sexual orientation “identity reconstruction” (i.e., recasting oneself as ex-gay, heterosexual, disidentifying as LGB) (Ponticelli, 1999, p. 157) that appeared to relieve the distress caused by conflicts between religious values and sexual orientation (Ponticelli, 1999). Ponticelli identified certain conditions necessary for resolving identity conflicts, including (a) adopting a new discourse or worldview, (b) engaging in a biographical reconstruction, (c) embracing a new explanatory model, and (d) forming strong interpersonal ties. For those rejecting a sexual minority identity, these changes occurred by participants taking on “ex-gay” cultural norms and language and finding a community that enabled and reinforced their primary religious beliefs, values, and concerns.
• What appears to shift and evolve in some individuals’ lives is sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation

In addition, I think it is important to take into consideration what the ex-gay groups say about themselves in relationship to conversion therapy.

• Exodus International says "Exodus International believes that reparative therapy - a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction - can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind. Our goal is to provide resources, spiritual mentorship and support to those wanting to reconcile their faith-based beliefs with their sexual behavior. Reparative therapy has been beneficial to many within our network. Exodus provides referrals to independent professionals who provide this resource. Exodus is a worldwide network of former homosexuals and the largest evangelical organization dealing with homosexuality in the world today."[5]
• Evergreen International says "Therapy will likely not be a cure in the sense of erasing all homosexual feelings" [6] and "Many professional organizations have made statements about the ineffectiveness and potential damage that can be caused by reparative or conversion therapy... The Bottom Line: Evergreen does not advocate any particular form of therapy."[7]
• Courage International doesn't even list diminishing same-sex attractions in it's mission statement.[8]
• Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality, a coallition of all of these groups, doesn't even advocate for a change in sexual orientation. All it talks about is diminishing same-sex attractions and increasing heterosexual potential. This is totally different than trying to change someone's sexual orientation.

These are the major ex-gay groups in the US. I am unfamiliar with areas outside of the US. A lot has changed in the last 18 years since Haldeman wrote his article. An interesting article that describes the changes is An Older, Wiser Ex-Gay Movement. They talk about how "The ex-gay movement seeks to integrate the reality of same-sex attraction into a life of discipleship." Integrating the reality of same-sex attractions is not the same thing as trying to convert people from gay to straight. Another article, Approaching agreement in debate over homosexuality, also talks about the shifting grounds in the ex-gay movement: "His personal denunciation of the term "ex-gay" -- his organization has yet to follow suit -- is just one example of shifting ground in the polarizing debate on homosexuality." Given everything that has changed in the last 18 years, and that NO MAJOR EX-GAY GROUP focuses on changing gays to straight anymore, and all make clear they do not offer any type of therapy, and there is even difference in the type of therapy they advocate, I really don't think it is reasonable to consider them either a conversion therapy group or SOCE. I only included them on the SOCE to discuss their relationship to SOCE. However, if it is on the conversion therapy page, I think it would be appropriate to discuss the fact that they themselves do not claim to offer therapy, as well as the stance of the APA. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Thank you for taking the time to research and post this for us. I do believe that at least some of these statements do have a role in the article, but we need to decide precisely what that should be. A more in-depth entry would fit in perfectly under SOCE and Ex-gay, but I think a summary-style version would probably be appropriate here. Above, I will lay out a rough agenda of what we need to determine and what order we should try and tackle the issues in. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two crucial things we have to remember here. The first is that the new APA report is not about Conversion therapy, unless SOCE and Conversion therapy are the same thing (which is only one possible interpretation). It therefore does not appear to be trying to discuss ex-gay ministries as part of Conversion therapy. If the article were to include statements about ex-gay ministries sourced to that report, without explaining that it was talking about SOCE and not Conversion therapy, it would be using the report contrary to its intention, which is forbidden under WP:NOR. The other thing to remember is that the ex-gay groups mostly don't use the term "conversion therapy" either, so what they say about themselves not being therapy or not offering therapy is not necessarily relevant. Whatever they say about themselves, they are a form of conversion therapy according to Haldeman's definition. BG talk 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is talking about ex-gay groups. The different sources might use a different term, but they are all talking about the same groups. Your argument would be like saying that sources that talk about "marriage equality" don't belong on the article about "same-sex marriage". That would create a POV fork. The Wordsmith, can you please comment on policy? How does policy apply here? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you're forgetting that the ex-gay section is located within an article called "Conversion therapy." That being so, using the new APA report in that section would imply that the APA considers ex-gay groups part of conversion therapy. Yet there is no evidence that the APA does regard them that way, so implying that they do would violate WP:NOR. BG talk 22:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue One:Ex-gay sex scandals

Discussion has been temporarily halted until we determin the scope of these articles. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Above, Born Gay pasted Haldeman's view on ex-gay ministries and their sex scandals. His addition to the article was the following: Haldeman adds that several ex-gay leaders, including the former head of Quest Ministries and Guy Charles of Liberation in Jesus Christ, have been disgraced for having sex with their clients. According to sociologist R. Lawson, who interviewed 14 former clients of Quest Ministries, all but two of them reported engaging in nude massage and mutual masturbation with its founder. Of the two clients who did not report this, one was an older man, and the other reported that the organization's founder had masturbated during a telephone counseling session with him. The founder of Quest Ministries resigned after these facts were brought to light, but later attempted to resume his ministry I believe that, while having something about sex scandals makes sense, the above entry might give it too much weight, as roughly a third of the ex-gay section. Sex scandals deserve mentioning, but not in that level of detail. So, I proposed the following: Haldeman adds that several ex-gay leaders, including the former head of Quest Ministries, have been disgraced for having sex with their clients. The founder of Quest Ministries resigned after these facts were brought to light, but later attempted to resume his ministry. I believe that this version is a good balance of the facts. Keep in mind that as a section that has a main article, this section should be in summary style, and only repeat the main points. Readers who want more information can go to the appropriate article, linked from that section. Opinions on this proposed compromise? The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I like that summary. --Boweneer (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) A couple things: (1) I'm still not convinced that ex-gays should be considered a type of conversion therapy. The last time I am aware of that it was referred to as a conversion therapy was in 1991. As I pointed out, a lot has changed, and they do not currently claim to offer therapy. At the very least that should be mentioned in the article. Can I make a request? Can we come to a decision on #4 before we try to tackle #1? How are we supposed to figure out how to represent how ex-gay groups are related to CT and SOCE if we don't even know what the scope of CT and SOCE is? (2) I think the date of his expulsion should be noted. (3) I think it should be balanced by statements about where ex-gay organizations are right now, rather than where they were in 1991. This is a good reference: "Scandals among leaders are far less common than in the early days, probably due to increased organizational accountability and growing awareness that those ministering in their area of temptation are vulnerable."[9] (4) My biggest problem has always been a lack of balance. I know this is jumping out of order, but I cannot come to a compromise on part #1 until I know it will be balanced by the APA statement. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I basically agree with The Wordsmith's proposal. I would prefer a slightly different statement, to better reflect the fact that Haldeman was discussing two different people: Haldeman adds that several ex-gay leaders, including the former head of Quest Ministries and Guy Charles of Liberation in Jesus Christ, have been disgraced for having sex with their clients. The founder of Quest Ministries resigned after these facts were brought to light, but later attempted to resume his ministry. Either would be OK, however. BG talk 21:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC) To reply to Joshuajohanson: we have one key source that identifies ex-gay groups as conversion therapy, and given its importance that's sufficient reason why they should be mentioned. Keep in mind that Robert Spitzer also lumped ex-gay groups together with therapy, albeit he used the term reparative therapy and not conversion therapy. His report has been influential in discussions of conversion therapy, so it's a further reason why we need a section on ex-gay groups. I doubt that Christianity Today counts as a reliable source, and nor does it seem to be discussing ex-gay groups as part of conversion therapy, so it hardly seems relevant. BG talk 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC) We will continue to have this disagreement until we come to a conclusion on the scope of CT and SOCE. Can we discuss that first? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) We probably cannot form a firm conclusion on the scope of Conversion therapy and Sexual change orientation change efforts until the APA clarifies how these phenomena are related - are they the same, or is one a subtype of the other? It's possible the APA may never explain this. BG talk 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with JJ - the basic problem is scope. The basic issue is whether BG can restrict the CT page to his favourite commentator by saying that equivalent terminology is inadmissable. The place to start with this question, is to ask why "reparative therapy" is allowed as a synonym, but "reorientaion therapy" is not. We can continue with the question "why is the APA the referee, instead of wikipedia guidelines?" Hyper3 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC) You are misrepresenting my position. I never said that the conversion therapy article should be restricted only to Haldeman's views. I said that it should be restricted mainly (and not necessarily exclusively) to sources that use the specific term conversion therapy. It is not my argument that reparative therapy is acceptable as a synonym but that reorientation therapy is not - the reason for including Spitzer is that his study has been influential in the context of discussions of conversion therapy. BG talk 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue Four: Scope of the articles

The point has been raised that the other three issues are really dependent on determining what the scope of these two articles should be. I would like for each party to give their initial opinion on this.Then, we can get on with negotiating a consensus. Personally, I feel that SOCE should encompass CT, Ex-gay, and everything else that falls under the umbrella of a method to change sexuality. CT should be specifically about those forms that multiple reliable sources consider to be CT. We shouldn't base the article entirely off Haldeman, but rather should incorporate other available sources as needed. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the scope of the Conversion therapy article is things that reliable sources define as conversion therapy. And that's it, basically. Maybe we need to compromise in a few cases and include things that aren't defined as conversion therapy if there is some absolutely compelling reason why we must, but if we want a NPOV article, it has to be mainly based on sources that talk about conversion therapy. I think it's questionable to argue that the article needs to include only things that multiple sources say are conversion therapy - that comes a little too close to editors working out their own definition of conversion therapy, even if they don't directly say that that is what it is. BG talk 04:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of individual sources say a lot of different things are conversion therapy. The term is constantly misapplied. If we want to show that something really is CT, then I think there has to be some sort of consensus amongst the major sources that it is CT. The academic community works by consensus, too. From WP:V:

Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

To show that ex-gay (and other types of SOCE) are considered CT, it should be a majority or significant-minority viewpoint. Demonstrating this requires more than one person saying it is. At least, it does according to how I interpret that passage for this article. Thoughts on making multiple RS the standard for inclusion? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what basis one can say that the term "conversion therapy" is misapplied in reliable sources. In my view, the problem with the approach you suggest is that there is no consensus among reliable sources about what conversion therapy is. I don't expect you to agree automatically here. Please do contest my view, if you don't agree; if I'm right, then the resulting discussion will end by making my position stronger, if I'm wrong, then I'll back down and admit as much. It's a very complex issue and needs to be considered as carefully as possible. Let's start with the example of Haldeman saying that ex-gay ministries are coversion therapy. So far as I know, none of the main mental health organizations in the United States have agreed with him about that, although the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce does. Yet I believe these same mental health organizations have cited Haldeman and used him as a source. So how can one say that Haldeman's views are fringe? If they were, then the views of the person probably responsible for introducing the term "conversion therapy" would become a fringe view of conversion therapy, a strange outcome indeed. BG talk 05:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Haldeman is a fringe theorist, but I wanted evidence that that opinion was at least a significant minority. I was not aware that NGLTF took the same position. Could you show us where? If this is true, it would be our second RS and therefore a basis for including ex-gay ministries in the article. It is also possible to say something like "Haldeman and the NGLTF consider ex-gay ministries to be conversion therapy, though most contemporary organizations (including several prominent ex-gay ministries themselves) consider them distinct." Something like that is concise and accurately depicts the controversy over the term's application to ex-gay ministries. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce report Youth in the Crosshairs, which is available here [[10]] states that conversion therapy is, "Psychological treatment and/or spiritual counseling designed to change a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual." No two organizations or people appear to use exactly the same definition; that one is theirs. That it is meant to include ex-gay groups is shown by the fact that the report states that, "The first wave began in 1973 with the founding of the first conversion therapy treatment program in San Francisco." The report sources that to a book by S. Penningron: Ex-gays? There are none. BG talk 06:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, that connection is very shaky. "Ex-gay" in the context of that book title could mean anyone who identifies as a "former homosexual," whether they used an ex-gay ministry or some other SOCE. Is there no more explicit connection? Thank you for finding that, though; I'm sure information from it could be useful on the wiki. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The connection is perfectly clear. The 1973 group was Love in Action, and there's no dispute about it being an ex-gay group. BG talk 07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the book if possible. You appear to be dismissing its relevance without having seen it. I haven't read it, but I have read Wayne Besen's description of it in his book Anything but Straight; Penningron discusses Love In Action, an ex-gay group according to the article about it and according to the Ex-gay article. In addition, it's obvious that the definition of conversion therapy used by the Taskforce is meant to include ex-gay groups. What on earth do you think "spiritual counseling" is meant to refer to? BG talk 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As an additional point, I don't read WP:VERIFY the way you do. Haldeman's view would be significant even if he were the only person to hold it, which is most unlikely. Before reaching a judgment on this issue, it would be best to do a more careful survey of the literature on conversion therapy. I've discussed many sources on my project page, but believe me, they're only a small part of the literature that exists. BG talk 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the SOCE should include all efforts to change sexual orientation regardless of whether it is referred to as an "attempt" or "effort" or "method". Conversion therapy should only include methods that are agreed upon are conversion therapy. In addition, I think related topics, such as alternative methods or ex-gay groups should be included, but only to explain how they are relevant. For example, I do not think that ex-gay groups should be considered a SOCE because most do not have as their main goal a change in sexual orientation. There should be a discussion on whether they attempt to change sexual orientation, but not much else. On the conversion therapy page there should be a discussion on whether they use conversion therapy. I think one reliable source is sufficient in the absence of conflicting information. We should consider all information at hand, such as how current the source is. Haldeman's description of ex-gay groups as conversion therapy would be enough, if it wasn't for the fact that mainstream medical organizations give definitions that seem to exclude ex-gay groups, as well as the groups themselves saying that they don't practice therapy, and that the source is 18 years old and there have been massive changes in the field since the publishing of the source. It may be noted that Haldeman considers ex-gay groups to be conversion therapy, but no serious discussion about ex-gay groups should be included, unless it is discussed in a holistic manner and not take advantage of the discrepancy of the situation to create a POV fork. However, other information provided in Haldeman's paper should be included as long as it seems to reflect the current situation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy should only focus on methods that have been defined by reliable sources as conversion therapy. I see no reason why all sources have to agree on a particular method being conversion therapy. The fact of the matter is that there is no agreement among sources about the meaning of conversion therapy. The new APA report was clear that ex-gay groups are a form of SOCE, and I don't see that you have any basis from which to argue otherwise. To exclude Haldeman's views on ex-gay groups while including his views on other forms of conversion therapy doesn't make the least sense, and I don't see how you can justify that position. BG talk 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't all have to agree, but the disagreement should be considered. You need to consider the age of the source, and conflicts with the source. Did the APA report say ALL ex-gay groups were SOCE? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What difference do the disagreements make? Or the age of the source? Your comments are very general. BG talk 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

description not technical term

I disagree with the the idea that this article is about a technical term; it is about an idea. The term is used in multiple ways, because it is part of a debate. Its a description. Some try to distance themselves from it, others try to include themselves in it. Once we say at the beginning what we think conversion therapy is, then other things that share the same definition (reparative therapy, reorientation therapy, etc) should also be described in the terminology section, and then reliable sources which mention them should be included. If we do not do this: [a] we will need different articles on each term, although they share the same history, [b] the "main article" sections will be radically different from the articles they refer to; for example the ex-gay section has an entirely different tone to the ex-gay article [c] wikipedia uses a different standard of definition for same-sex marriage, which is much more sensible; in other places where multiple terms are used there is no problem; yet conversion therapy, will be different for no good reason [d] the conversion therapy page will not be npov because adherents to the concept don't use the same terminology [e] the number of sources will be cut down for no real reason [f] the confused reader will not be helped to understand what conversion therapy is.Hyper3 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If we find conversion therapy being used in the same way be multiple authors then there might be a case for calling it a technical term (but still other uses should be included). We do not, we find the opposite. The case for it being a technical term therefore fails. The case for it being used in multiple ways and having multiple other phrases used in support of the same set of ideas is undeniable. We must describe the whole set of ideas and use the various terms according to wikipedia policy. To do anything other is to import an alien standard unknown to wikipedia. Hyper3 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To imply that our task is a dictionary task attaching to certain words and to do anything else is original research is an untenable position. The original research policy and the npov policy do not conflict so that to follow one is to endanger the other, unless of course we are following the new and alien dictionary policy that BG proposes. Hyper3 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer a broader scope of definition for this article and SOCE. Why? Because this is such a small area of study in the scope of humanity, that I am afraid that separate articles for what appears to be overlapping definitions by opposing groups and even individuals means that this is a nebulous cluster of related terms and therapies and some of the fringe of the fringe so to speak will be lost. I guess I'm an inclusionist. I'm more concerned that the article accurately describe *what* is involved in specific techniques, the motivations of the promoters of these techniques, and the studies on the results.--Boweneer (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Conversion therapy" is a term that people define in different ways. There is no way around that, and no way to produce a single definition just because it would be convenient to Wikipedia to have one. You can say that conversion therapy is an idea if you like, but there is little agreement what that idea is. Hyper3 is wrong to say that reparative therapy has the same definition as conversion therapy; sometimes they are defined the same way, but sometimes they are defined differently. Hyper3 is correct, however, that we would need different articles about some of these terms (including reparative therapy) if we insist that Conversion therapy is only about things that sources define as conversion therapy. That isn't much of a problem in the case of reparative therapy, since it does have a history that is partially distinct from conversion therapy as a whole. It's true also that the ex-gay section of Conversion therapy will be very different from the ex-gay article, but that too I see as inevitable, and even desirable. The definitional issues of Same-sex marriage are a completely different kind of issue from those facing Conversion therapy; people agree what same-sex marriage is whatever the term they use, but that's not the case here. The fact that supporters of conversion therapy tend to use different terms from opponents, and that the conversion therapy article will therefore overwhelmingly represent the views of opponents if based on sources that discuss "conversion therapy", is too bad for the supporters, in my view. I don't see that as conflicting with NPOV. Cutting down the number of sources would be an excellent idea; in fact, it would be the only thing that would make it possible to edit the article coherently. It would be an unmanageable task otherwise. If readers come away from the article not knowing what conversion therapy is, then they will be properly informed, because the fact is that nobody does know what it is. Giving them the idea that we do know what conversion therapy is would be absolutely wrong, because we don't. BG talk 20:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3 says above that, "We must describe the whole set of ideas and use the various terms according to wikipedia policy. To do anything other is to import an alien standard unknown to wikipedia." His comments are gibberish and evade the point. The different definitions of conversion therapy are mutually exclusive, and the result is that one cannot properly speak of them as involving a "whole set of ideas." They are different ideas; that's the problem. BG talk 20:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BG has presented a rationale for no longer having an article called "conversion therapy." According to him, the term is used irrationally, and therefore an article on it can tell us nothing. Shall we delete it? Hyper3 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BG believes it is possible to describe the different ways CT (as a technical term) is used, and that this can be a useful contribution. I think what makes a rational contribution is the description of the whole context, not just a slice of it. This is a discussion that has taken place in sociology and anthropology already, and has gained widespread acceptance. The job of the scholarly endeavour that is hoping to describe an aspect of human life intelligibly requires the use of thick description. This is opposed to "thin description" where the approach fails to communicate the multi-layered aspects of the phenomenon in question. Good scholarship should aspire to the communication of ideas in this way. BG's reductionist approach, whilst it may be a good faith attempt at dealing with complexity, will not achieve the standard that this encyclopaedia hopes for. For further comment on the matter, I think we should all re-read WP:TPA which speaks of the horizon we should aim for... Hyper3 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BG believes that the fact that CT cannot be resolved to one definition is a problem. I say we need to describe the debate, and not expect to have a single definition. The debate involves multiple terms. What is conversion therapy? Whatever the various sources say it is, reported according to wikipedia policy and addressing the ideas that it represents. Hyper3 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my views in an offensive and increasingly disruptive way. I did not say that the term "conversion therapy" is used "irrationally." Neither did I say that an article on it can tell us "nothing." Nominating Conversion therapy for deletion would be disruptive and would be recognized as being disruptive. BG talk 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If "nobody knows what it is" then it is not being used rationally. The truth is we do have a good idea what it is, but there is a debate. This is normal. Finding irrational ways to cut down the sources does not make the article more comprehensible, but rather distorts the picture of what it is; instead of describing what conversion therapy is using all available sources we are describing it with a term used mainly by one side of the debate. A term which has often been retrospectively applied, and which is only one of the possible terms used to describe the idea. Of course we must name the article with one of these thoughts: perhaps the simplest and most readily identifiable (of which conversion therapy is not necessarily the only possibility). Hyper3 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "we" that supposedly has a good idea what conversion therapy is? I don't consider myself part of it. All I know is that there are a lot of different definitions of conversion therapy, and that many of them are incompatible with each other. You suggest that cutting down the number of sources is irrational, but you offer no good reason why it should be considered that. BG talk 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

In an article about conversion therapy, BG thinks that a reference, to say, "reorientation therapy" would be original research. Please state why you think this is the case or not, and where the policy guideline is that states this. Hyper3 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, Timothy F Murphy Redirecting Sexual Orientation: Techniques and Justifications Journal of Sex Research, Nov92, Vol. 29, Issue 4 uses conversion therapy; reorientation therapy; and sexual reorientation therapy interchangeably. Hyper3 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Haldeman, D. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), pp. 260-264: uses the longer version, "sexual orientation conversion therapy" and refers to "conversion therapies" which shows that it us a generic term, not a specific term. He also uses "therapeutic modifications of sexual orientation." Hyper3 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by saying that a reference to reorientation therapy would be original research. Where did I say that? I'm aware that different terms are sometimes used interchangeably with conversion therapy, but so what? What is that supposed to prove? Not everyone would consider such terms interchangeable. BG talk 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See this. Hyper3 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What I was talking about there was what kind of sources the article should use, not whether it should mention "reorientation therapy" as a term, which appeared to be what you were talking about. BG talk 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are happy to use sources that use the term "reorientation therapy" but not "conversion therapy": if not, why not? Hyper3 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained the reasoning behind basing an article called "Conversion therapy" on sources that talk about conversion therapy on my project page, easy to find through my edit history. As a reason additional to those I give there: if the article is restricted mainly to sources that use the term "conversion therapy", then editing it becomes, in principle, a rather simple and straightforward task. Otherwise it is a nightmarish and all but impossible task. BG talk 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My project page is here [11]. See the WP:NOR section. BG talk 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is interesting, but not relevant to the question. You want to cut through the complexity of the ordinary wikipedia environment by cutting down the number of relevant sources through using a dictionary definition device, and you say that any other approach is original research. I am asking you to justify your opinion using wikipedia guidelines, not merely restating your opinions, or guiding me to other places where you state your opinions. Also you must do it on the mediation page as part of the mediation. I contend that you have made up a new approach, and that you are using "conversion therapy" in a technical way that no one uses in the literature. I contend that even were this approach to be justified by wikipedia policy you would need a reliable source that says "conversion therapy is a technical term" but you cannot produce one. Now show your approach is within wikipedia guidelines, and show me a source that says conversion therapy is a clear technical term, or stop reverting edits that don't meet your invented rules. Hyper3 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider that my opinion is relevant. That's because I'm a Wikipedia editor, and we are supposed to discuss things with each other and reach consensus. Otherwise, I could just as well declare your opinions not relevant. I presume that you mean Wikipedia policies, not Wikipedia guidelines, in your statment above. I've provided my interpretation of WP:NOR elsewhere; I will restate it here if that's really necessary, but it's up to The Wordsmith to say whether he thinks it is. Not a single thing you say above replies to any of the arguments I've given within my user space. If all you can give me is rhetorical statements to the effect that you don't agree with how I've read WP:NOR, then this mediation serves little purpose. BG talk 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And no, I don't need a source stating that "conversion therapy" is a technical term. That's a dumb argument (or assertion, rather, because it's not an actual argument). I've never suggested that "conversion therapy is a technical term", and you aren't going to achieve anything by restating what you imagine to be my position in terms that I don't accept. The fundamental problem is perfectly clear: there is no agreement what "conversion therapy" is, and that being so, we cannot say that anything is "directly related" to conversion therapy except for the things that reliable sources describe as conversion therapy. Complaining that conversion therapy is not a technical term looks like a cheap rhetorical attempt to shift the burden of proof. BG talk 22:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: if I add something that is sourced to "reorientation therapy" you say it is original research, (even when your favourite authors use such phrases interchangeably). You can only revert such an edit if it is wikipedia policy to do so. If it is so obvious, then show me where wikipedia policy says you can do that. I believe you will fail to do so, because the perfect article WP:TPA is one that refers to an idea, not a dictionary definition. Yet do so so if you can, but don't refer to your preferences, or your assertion that the nature of conversion therapy is unknowable as these are your personal opinions and not strictly relevant to establishing your right to treat this page in the way you have been doing. Hyper3 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What cheap, pointless, stupid rhetoric. I don't recall your ever adding something that is sourced to something that talks about "reorientation therapy", or my reverting you. If you think that Wikipedia policy is meant to cover each and every possible instance of original research (eg, for it to specifically say that using sources that talk about "reorientation therapy" in the Conversion therapy article is original research) then you have a laughable misunderstanding of policy. You might as well withdraw from the mediation and give up if you can't come up with something better than that rubbish. The fact is that we have broad, general policies that we have to use our intelligence to interpret. You can repeat that the article is about an idea as much as you like, but that's a very stupid argument, because there is little agreement what the "idea" of conversion therapy is, as we all know, or should know by now. I humbly submit to you that your personal opinion that there is one "idea" called conversion therapy is wrong. You are not allowed to base things on your personal opinions any more than any one else. BG talk 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have given up on serious argument. Everything you're saying comes down to the point blank assertion that what I say is my irrelevant personal opinions but that what you say is Truth. Pardon me for finding your comments very boring; I'm increasingly thinking that any attempt at discussing things with you is a waste of time and that this mediation is pointless. I'd like to ask the mediator to come back and do some mediating, or we may as well end this. BG talk 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay. Calm down. I think that whatever we think of each other's position its best to stay as polite as possible. You keep saying that all edits on the page "conversion therapy" must be from sources that mention "conversion therapy" or you say it is original research. I want to add sources that use "reorientation therapy" but not necessarily "conversion therapy" because although this is a different term, it is addressing the same idea. You feel justified in policing the article on this basis, and I want you to show me where in wikipedia policy you are permitted to do this. If you can't, then you must not revert edits that add other terms to the article. You are of the opinion that using other terms makes an untidy article, but you are not permitted to impose this on other people unless you have backing from wikipedia policy. I believe that there is a debate using multiple terms; there are conversion therapies, not one conversion therapy; we must explain the whole idea. This approach is explained in WP:TPA and we all need to pay attention to it.Hyper3 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is very much the core of our disagreement; don't you think it is good that we have managed to pin it down? Now we can say that we have a particular issue to get mediation for. Hyper3 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: it is not my position that the Conversion therapy article must be based exclusively on sources that refer to conversion therapy using that specific term. Rather, it is that the article should be based primarily on such sources to minimize the danger of original research. Probably exceptions will have to be made, but there should be very good reasons for them. You're asserting again that Converson therapy is a single "idea", but as usual you provide no evidence for this. You are trying to discuss this issue on an abstract level that doesn't give proper reasons for your views - specifically what sources that refer to reorientation therapy do you want to use and specifically why do you want to use them? BG talk 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To save time, the following quotes of WP:TPA, which is a style guideline, are relevant:

The perfect Wikipedia article...

is not a dictionary article as it is not about a word and how it is used; it is about an idea, which it explores thoroughly.

acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

The thing is, both of your opinions have merit, and we'll have to work on a compromise here. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wordsmith - do you have any suggestions as to how we might come to an agreement?Hyper3 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that BG's concern to use sources appropriately is right; nonetheless I think that the scope of the article is wider than just references to "conversion therapy." I think we need to work on expanding the terminology section to include other words commonly used in the debate, but only where they can be established by a good source. Then we should describe what the disagreements are, without trying to be experts ourselves or mediating between them. Hyper3 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can argue that the scope of the article is wider than "Conversion therapy" as a specific term, if you like, but how much wider? Where does one set the limits? If the article is about Conversion therapy as an "idea", then one needs to define that idea, but if even the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association can't agree about precisely how to do that, then Wikipedia and its editors certainly can't, and nor should we be trying. Instead, we should be restricting the article largely to things that have already been described by sources as conversion therapy, with a small number of exceptions made for good reasons. Otherwise, we would be guilty of making up our own definition of conversion therapy, and per WP:NOR, that's clearly not OK. It is of little use to appeal to WP:TPA, because the guideline could only apply in cases where there is a single, agreed upon idea to define an article. Here, there isn't. BG talk 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, "Conversion Therapy" is often used as a POV term by those against it, in the same way "traditional marriage" is used by those against same-sex marriage, even though it is a misnomer. So, the idea that we can use only sources that specifically refer to CT is a good ideal for most articles, but not really feasible for this one. We're going to have to negotiate exactly what sources can and cannot be used, by figuring out if what they're talking about is essentially CT or not. It wouldn't be OR, really; at least, not any more that in any other article where the author(s) decides which sources to use and not to use by examining their relevance. We're not telling readers what we think CT is (which would be OR), we would be telling them what sources that describe the same idea say. That, according to my interpretation of policy, is not OR. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have several things to say in reply to that. First, although it is true that the term "conversion therapy" is more often used by opponents than it is by supporters, some people who are in favor of it also use that term. See for instance A. Dean Byrd's article "Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" [12]. So the term is not inherently "POV." Second, I think the argument that we need to use sources that use terms other than "conversion therapy" to preserve an NPOV presentation of the rights and wrongs of the conversion therapy issue is weak, because most (if not absolutely all) reliable sources are highly critical of attempts to change homosexuality, whatever the term they use. If there are reliable sources that support the claims of people who promote such attempts that use terms other than "conversion therapy", then the argument that they should be used might be worth making, but where are they? I think you would find very few, if any, such sources. The one significant exception might be the Spitzer report, which refers to "reparative therapy" rather than to "conversion therapy".

If we wanted to arrange things so that "Reparative therapy" was a separate article from "Conversion therapy" and all the sources that talked about "Reparative therapy" were used in the former and all those that talked about "Conversion therapy" were in the latter, then the Spitzer report might be kept out of the Conversion therapy article, but that approach would be questionable at best. Therefore, the Spitzer Report is one of the cases where we do need to use a source that doesn't talk about "conversion therapy" using that term (I've tried to be very clear that such cases exist - I don't think we should use only sources that use that one specific term, simply that most of the sources used should use it). It has been influential in the context of debates over conversion therapy in a way that numerous other sources that refer to "reparative therapy" have not been. The Spitzer report aside, however, the issue of whether sources that use other terms are acceptable or not doesn't make all that much difference to whether the article portrays change attempts positively or negatively, because the article will be predominantly critical of conversion therapy in either case. Third, it's largely if not totally pointless to consider whether something is "essentially conversion therapy" in the absence of an agreed-upon definition. Maybe it is necessary to consider that issue in a few cases, but in general, it's pointless and we don't need to anyway. BG talk 05:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is progress. We agree that certain sources that discuss the same idea but use a different term such as the Spitzer report, are necessary to use. I think we can IAR here and do what is best to build the article, so perhaps now that we agree that some exceptions are okay, we can start discussing what the valid exceptions are? I agree that the article should be primarily based on sources that use the CT term, but a good first step here is discussing the exceptions. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 12:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should use sources that specifically refer to conversion therapy to establish whether or not a certain method is considered conversion therapy, but once we establish that a certain method is conversion therapy, then any reliable source that describes that method should be used, whether or not it specifically uses the term "conversion therapy". Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yarhouse, Mark A. Homosexuality, Ethics and Identity Synthesis Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality; Aug2004, Vol. 10 Issue 2/3, p239-257 states: "With only a few exceptions, professionals on both sides of the current debate frame the issue in terms of therapies that attempt to effect a “change of [sexual] orientation” (e.g., Haldeman, 1994, 2000; Throckmorton, 1998; Tozer & McClanahan, 1999; Yarhouse, 1998). Implicit metaphysical assumptions operative in the “reorientation” debate and the current language used to depict and criticize reorientation therapies tend to bring certain disputed (important) issues to the foreground of the debate while leaving in the background several other unresolved (and no less important) issues." I believe we can use "reorientation" and "change in orientation" in connection with "therapy" as similar enough usage. Yarhouse references others like Haldeman as his source for this usage. Whatever you think of Yarhouse's point of view, he is a peer reviewed scholar and the source (especially for use) is reliable. Hyper3 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is not exactly that "certain sources that discuss the same idea but use a different term" should be used. It's not clear that conversion therapy is a single "idea", however convenient it might be to Wikipedia if it was. Rather, my point is that sources that refer to basically similar ideas using related terms ("reparative therapy", etc) should be used if there is some specially good reason for doing so. It would clearly be helpful to focus further discussion on specific sources that might be used rather than the general issue of whether they should be used at all. BG talk 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Joshuajohanson: let's remember the due weight rule, please. The fact that a certain method has been deemed to be "conversion therapy" by a reliable source does not automatically mean that everything that reliable sources have said about it should be in the Conversion therapy article, because it has to be shown that whatever it is they have said is important to understanding Conversion therapy as a whole. The point of the article is to briefly summarise the main points about conversion therapy, and probably most of what reliable sources have said about specific conversion therapy methods is undue or unnecessary to include. BG talk 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy is that the "idea" or "ideas" that the entry is about form the basis of the article. My point is that we must stick to that. Born Gay should not be permitted to add a new policy that restricts reliable sources in any other way. This is very important for this article, as "conversion therapies" is used as a catch-all phrase to represent a number of terms, and often those terms are used independently of that catch-all phrase. Hence, any therapy that results in the change of sexual orientation, identity, or practice falls under this rubric. The reason why BG feels that "conversion therapy" is hard to define is because it is used in this way. An article that tries to use it technically will end up bringing together ideas used in very different ways, only because they happen to use the catch-all phrase. It is only with the use of all the terms in the field that we may be able to create an adequate reflection of all typologies of conversion therapy. Hyper3 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is this policy, of which you speak? BG talk 08:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that "conversion therapies" is not a phrase used to represent terms for conversion therapy. It is a phrase used (I suppose) to represent different methods of conversion therapy. Perhaps Hyper3 confuses these concepts. In any case, I can't imagine how his assertions are meant to prove anything. The transition from "Hence, any therapy that results in the change of sexual orientation, identity, or practice falls under this rubric" to "The reason why BG feels that "conversion therapy" is hard to define is because it is used in this way" is something of a non sequitur. The reason why I feel that conversion therapy is hard to define is because there are different, incompatible definitions; in fact it isn't used in any one way at all, neither the way that Hyper3 sugggests nor any other. BG talk 08:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPA is an expression of policy. Hyper3 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Haldeman uses the terms in this way. Hyper3 (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that TPA is a guideline, not policy, but still something we should try to follow. It should be noted that while they are neither policy nor guideline, the Good Article criteria includes "broad in its coverage" and the Featured article criteria include "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." These tend to suggest that broadly defined articles are preferred over narrow ones. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We certainly should be trying to follow guidelines where possible, but unfortunately their requirements cannot always be met where Conversion therapy is concerned. That's true of both WP:TPA and WP:LEAD, neither of which can be followed down to the last detail in the absence of agreement about exactly what conversion therapy is. The whole point of their being guidelines and not policies is that exceptions can be made in some special cases. BG talk 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BG you are wrong at this point - many articles report that there is debate about the subject in question. We must report the whole debate and all the terms. We don't need to know what conversion therapy is to do this; only that there are many opinions. This is not a special case. We are not the experts, and cannot make psychological, therapeutic, moral, ethical or terminological judgements but must report what we find. This is exactly the sort of article that WP:TPA was written for, to encourage us not to lose heart because it appears difficult, but to do a proper job, and take no short-cuts. Hyper3 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of your comments is unclear. I don't recall having said that there was no "debate" about conversion therapy or that the article shouldn't mention it if there was. I don't see any convincing reason why we "must" report all the terms; some of them are rather obscure (eg, gender affirmative therapy), and not of any particular importance to helping readers understand the subject. Could you please explain yourself more carefully? BG talk 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You say restrict the use of terminology to "conversion therapy", I say describe the whole idea. You say there is more than one idea, I say, yes I know, there are many ideas. You say avoid describing terms like "gender affirmative therapy" I say we must include it. You say this will make the article complicated, I say there is no way of avoiding it. You say keep to one term, I say using one term irrationally reduces the idea, and misrepresents the field. You say we shouldn't follow wikipedia policy and guidelines because this is a special case, I say no it isn't, its very ordinary. You say this is "cheap, pointless, stupid rhetoric," and I say you are a vandal. Then I apologise. Hyper3 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments do not deserve a response. They are not a meaningful reply to anything I've said. Continue to reply with irrelevant comments and I will withdraw from the mediation. BG talk 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So making it simple for you isn't working? Hyper3 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw from the mediation as of now. I think the fundamental unreasonableness (and the sheer rudeness and childishness) of your comments should be obvious to anyone. BG talk 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)