Talk:Reparative therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reparative therapy has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Electroconvulsive therapy 2 Passed GA 3 POV 4 Internet polls as unreliable sources 5 Major organizations reject reparative therapy 6 The American Psychiatric Association's position statement

[edit] Electroconvulsive therapy

ECT is not used with reparative therapy (to change homosexual behaviors). I'm leaving in a verify request tag on this statement for a couple days unless someone can find a source. I highly doubt (HIGHLY) that this was ever used. Remember, ECT is used as a last resort (at least in the US) to deal with severe psychiatric disorders and sends the patient into a seizure, by sending electricity through the brain. Undergoing classical conditioning (i.e. aversion therapy) by administering a shock to an individual's hands, genitals, or other body part to change behavior is not ECT (as unethical as that might be). Chupper 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the old citation did not extend to include ECT (due to my own misunderstanding of what ECT is, which you've helpfully clarified). I added a citation which seems to support the claim: "Treatments included behavioural aversion therapy with electric shocks, oestrogen therapy, religious counselling, electroconvulsive therapy, and psychoanalysis, and often had a negative impact on patients' sense of identity and place in society." Fireplace 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good source, I learned something new as well. This is the first time I've heard of ECT being used. They are rather vague about it, I wish there were more specifics. But, a great reputable source. Chupper 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Congratulations! You article has been granted Wikipedia:Good Articles status. Very nicely researched, well-written, fair, neutral tone, a particular achievement. To reach FA status, I suggest slightly more work addressing the "pro" viewpoint of reparative therapists. Though the article does not have too much POV, the movement is a large one and a little more time explaining the religous angle may actually strengthen the article. To do this, consider bringing material from external sources you've already listed at bottom into footnoted sections and shortening the external links list. But overall well-sourced, well-written, and nice handling of a delicate subject. Well done! Montanabw 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments! Fireplace 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The entire introduction to the article is nothing but why the topic is bad, fought against, disliked, unapproved, etc. In fact, the intorduction closes with a long quote about how the entire subject is wrong and part of a grand right-wing conspiracy.

It's well within Wikipedia policy to label minority/fringe views as such. The intro needs more content about what RT is, but it's not an NPOV problem. Fireplace 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can hardly call the Christian right a minority view anymore than the LGBT left, and the claim that the sole reason for the ex-gay movement is to role back legal protections for LGBT is unfounded. Christians are morally opposed to sexual relationships outside of marriage, not legal protections for the LGBT community. I think part of the problem is how the ex-gay movement is presented. It doesn't represent the view of the Christian right at all, or Jewish and Muslim communities for that matter. Most people in the ex-gay movement do not teach that your orientation changes, just that you are able to deal with your attractions without having sex with your own gender. Mainstream medical organizations do not say because you are attracted to your gender you HAVE to have sex with them. They don't say you have to have sex with anyone. Many people in the ex-gay movement have never had sex with their own gender, so it mostly comes down to dealing with emotions, which doesn't contradict mainstream medical organizations. There are ex-gay organizations throughout the world with major conferences. It isn't some fringe view.

So one of two things needs to happen, either:

• Reparative therapy is a fringe view that doesn't represent the view of the Christian right. This article would then need to be reworded so it doesn't sound like all ex-gays support reparative therapy.
• Reparative therapy is the view of the Christian right and therefore not a fringe view. Significant work would then need to be done to acurately represent the Christian viewpoint.

Until one of these two things occur, this article violates NPOV. Joshuajohanson 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your concerns. Your first bullet is particularly confusing to me -- what does reparative therapy's relationship to the Christian right have to do with the percentage of ex-gays who support reparative therapy?" Joie de Vivre 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should separate the goals of the Christian Right from the goals of ex-gays and RT from the ex-gay movement. Part of my confusion stems from the article itself, since the ex-gay movement redirects to RT. Much of the article talks about how RT is pushed forward by the Christian right, but many of the priciples talked about in the article are not endorsed by either the Christian Right or the majority of ex-gays. So I don't know if the definition of RT needs to be changed to properly reflect the mindset of ex-gays and the goals of the Christian right, or if another article needs to be written to properly characterize the ex-gay movement.

I also think this article violates NPOV. Fireplace's argument was that RT was a fringe view, but according to this article it is the view of the Christian right, which cannot be called a fringe group by Wikipedia's definition. I would just like a fair, unbiased representation to both sides of this issue.Joshuajohanson 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

/\ The above section to the previous contributor's section appears to be unsigned.

I have to say that I agree with Joshuajohanson I feel very uneasy about the obvious bias in the article towards the "Gay Lobby" or LGBT POV. There is little attempt to sympathetically treat the RT proponents be they Christian or not (and not all of them are Christians - though it seems to me that they are predominantyly so). There is a clear attempt to "demonise" the Christian point of view (forgive the pun) with the frequent use of the term "Christian Right" as if being a Christian and on the Right automatically invalidates what you say. Christians like the rest of the population are divided between those who are politically conservative or to the right and those who are more liberal and to the left. I'm sure that there are many Christians who would not think of themselves as "right-wing" on a lot of topics. Also the article largely ignores the POV of those who have been through RT and had good experiences with it and are now living "straight" lives. What do they think? I get no impression of this at all.

In any event all this talk of "left" and "right" ignores the fact that what ever our politics we all have POVs which are equally valid. We might not like what someone else thinks but this does not make their POV less valid. Where views are extremist then certainly we need to estew them, but reparative therapists views do not seem to me to be extreme - just not popular. Not being popular doesn't mean that I can discount their views.

I disagree with Fireplace when he implies that the "Christian Right" or "Reparative Therapists'" Views are "minority/fringe". The ex-gay movement may not be as big as the LGBT movement but they seem to be a lot of groups offering RT (not clear how big they are but judging from the number of organisations that offer RT there must be a few thousand at least) - possibly you could call ex-gays a minority group but it would be extremely offensive to label them as such. Extremist of all colours have treated the views and humanity of numerous minorities in this way. LGBT's themselves would protest strongly (and in my view rightly) at such treatment. To imply that Christians (whether right or left) are a minority group is questionable in the extreme. Even if we just confine ourselves to the evangelical / pentecostal / charistmatic wing of the church who are probably the most vocal in their opostion to the LGBT lifestyle they comprise a far bigger group in most Western countries than LGBTs (1-2% according to the latest Canadian survey identify themselves as Gay as oposed to approximately 12% protestant in Canada). This is not to ignore the Catholics who comprise an even larger percentage of the population in Canada (using Canada for the sake of comparison) and are equally vocal in their opposition of the LGBT lifestyle. Similar percentages can be quoted for many other Western countries.

I think that the assertion that ex-gay / RT / Christian POV are interchageable terms is supurious. From the limited research I have done it would appear that most of the mainstream Christian churches are completely ignorant of the ex-gay movement and of reparative therapy and have politicised the issue in much the same way that the LGBT movement seems to have. The LGBT movement and many Christian denominations / churches have adopted opposite ends of the spectrum and become very polarised.

One could argue that ex-gays are persecuted by both the LGBT and straight communities. Straight people reason that "once-gay-always-gay, how can this person have changed their orientation?" The LGBT community seem to treat ex-gays with similar contempt. They deny the possbility of change even if someone stands infront of them as evidence: "this person hasn't really changed willingly - they were cooerced." As a persecuted minority they deserve respect, protection and at least an attempt to understand their POV. This article should present much more of the POV of ex-gays and their experience of RT.

I would argue that this article strongly violates the NPOV and am extremely surprised that it has managed to get GA status.

I notice that some people contributing to this discussion have not signed their contributions. Robert Williams 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Several points.

• I'll just note that the objecting editors are new accounts, both with <50 edits almost entirely focused on reparative therapy. RT-related pages are regularly subjected to aggressive editing by "new" editors with an ax to grind.
• More substantively: no one is claiming that Christians are a fringe group. The proposition, which is extensively sourced throughout the article, is that the claims made by reparative therapists and ex-gays are widely rejected by the mainstream scientific and medical communities.
• One of the editors is correct: there are many sets of beliefs by reparative therapists and ex-gays out there, and the article does not capture the full range of them nor their disagreements among themselves (there's a footnote about NARTH condemning Richard Cohen, but that's about it). This part of the article needs to be expanded.
• I agree that the intro needs retooling to say more about the doctrine and less about listing who opposes it. This is on my own to-do list.

Fireplace 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not implying Christians are a fringe group, are you implying that ex-gays are a fringe group? They do not fall under that category according to Wikipedia policy because they have a prominent adherents. I understand that mainstream scientific and medical communities reject claims by reparative therapists. It is superfluously repeated throughout the article. That makes RT a pseudoscience, of which it is properly labeled. However Wikipedia policy is to not take the scientific view (which this article does), but a neutral point of view, because "Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant." Christians and ex-gays represent a significant viewpoint and should be fairly represented and "proportional to the rest of the article". If you say "no one is claiming that Christians are a fringe group", then you should represent their viewpoints. Evidences that their viewpoints are not fairly represented are as follows:

• The only reason given for why the Christian Right supports the ex-gay movement is to "roll back legal protections", which is completely unfounded in Christian literature and represents the LGBT point of view, not the Christian viewpoint. This is repeated twice.
• Other theories as to why some people support the ex-gay movement, such as financial and political, are all negative and largely speculative. The reasons the groups themselves claim to be for it are not represented.
• No major Christian group is quoted as to why they support the ex-gay movement.
• The viewpoint of those participating in the movement is not represented at all, only science claiming they are only there because of social pressures.
• There is no section on ex-gays, only ex-ex-gays, even though many people have claimed to be ex-gay. This would be akin to only writing about people from AA that returned to being alcoholics.
• There is a list of gay rights organizations and some religious organizations that oppose it, but no list of organizations that are for it. There should be a summary about what they believe.
• The See Also section is entirely composed of links to the opposition.

Joshuajohanson 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson makes some well considered and good points. The article is heavily biased and as I've stated before ignores the POV of exgays themselves. The article does make a good representation of the views of the LGBT community. Whilst one respects this POV it isn't balanced at all. Fireplace makes the comment "It's well within Wikipedia policy to label minority/fringe views as such". One wonders what other axes are being ground? We need to see a lot more balance here. I would suggest some changes but as has been pointed out I am inexperienced. I take it anyone can make alterations to the article? Could I suggest that the three of us start making some improvements?

Robert Williams 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joshuajohanson and Robert Williams. This article has a heavy POV slant, and should be improved, or else the Good Article rating should be put up for review.R.E.S.A. 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene, another "new" account who quickly jumps into POV disputes.

Thanks, Joshuajohanson, for your helpful bullet points. I've started to address some of these, but more content should still be added (this has been the plan all along). The quality of the article is pretty good, so I'm trying very hard to avoid falling into sophomoric prose typical on Wikipedia where each issue is binarily surrounded by "supporters" and "critics" who always have to get a word in at each paragraph. Fireplace 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that there should be a subsection on prominent ex-gays. Any nominees? Fireplace 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, I should like to know how being "another "new" account who quickly jumps into POV disputes" disqualifies someone from making a contribution on this subject? I can't speak for the others who are making contributions on this topic - but I do have an interest in RT and that should be qualification enough.

The article is heavily skewed and only properly gives one side of the story. It violates NPOV on a number of scores see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

You insinuated that some recent contributors have an axe to grid - what is yours? Robert Williams 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The sudden appearance of multiple new editors weighing in on a POV discussion brings up legitimate suspicions of sock puppetry and whether or not someone has asked others to come here. It's the sort of thing that's seen more often in AfD discussions than on Talk pages, though. I'm not saying that's what's going on in this case, just that noting it isn't entirely out of line. eaolson 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing statements made by major medical organizations I take back what I said about this article representing the scientific point of view. The article makes it sound like no one should ever try to change their orientation or seek to diminish same-gender attractions. From my understanding, medical organizations reject therapies that force people to change, that believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, that have bias against homosexuals, that use guilt as a mechanism, or that make unfounded claims that therapy can change one's orientation. I see no evidence that therapies that do not make any of these claims are rejected by the science community, as this article seems to imply.Joshuajohanson 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No... It does not require treatment and is not changeable." [1].

"Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." [2]. Fireplace 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say that homosexuality required treatment. I still do not think this fairly represents the scientific point of view, let alone a neutral point of view that Wikipedia is supposed to represent. See below.Joshuajohanson 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No sock puppetry involved - at least not that I'm aware of. This is a legitimate debate. I freely confess to having an interest in the subject born out of personal experience. This article is totally un-representative of modern RT - certainly as it is practiced in Australia and probably as it is practiced in many other countries including the States. It is a contravertial subject which means that it must be handled carefully and sensitively with a proper respect for NPOV. As I read this article I get no impression at all of the position of the RT movement only that the LGBT movement think it is horibly wrong. The science quoted in support of both sides is shakey because it has become a political hot potato and few serious independent studies have been undertaken. Therefore the whole matter, which boils down to the question of whether or not it is possible for a homosexually oriented person to change their orientation is still a matter of opionion. Therefore this opionion (backed up by much anecodtal evidence) is worthy of being aired fairly especially in an encyclopedia article which is not the place to berate one section of the population over another.

I really feel that we should place a "The POV of this article is under dispute" banner at the top of this article until we can come to some agreement on NPOV. Robert Williams 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet polls as unreliable sources

This material fails WP:ATT because it does not come from a reliable source. "People Can Change" is a minor group that runs an internet chat board. They sent out a survey to everyone who had signed up, and got 189 usable responses. Then, they put it together in a pdf and uploaded it to their webpage. Prima facie, any pollster or statistician will tell you that these "results" are meaningless. Try getting it peer reviewed or published in a mainstream source. Regarding specific Wikipedia policy, this survey fails WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources because there is no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, and because it was self-published with no independent entity standing between the author and publication. Fireplace 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That only means in falls in the category of self-published sources. However, WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources gives the following instance where self-published sources can be used:

Wikipedia Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

* it is relevant to their notability;

* it is not unduly self-serving;

* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

* the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This was not an online poll. This was done by members of a group through identifiable moderators to make sure no vote was counted twice. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources Wikipedia policy firther states:

An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material, and challenge or correct any factual errors could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.

The ex-gay point of view is not covered by print sources, because RT is rejected by mainstream medical organizations. Therefore, this falls into the above exception.

This section violates NPOV. An unpublished thesis and a sole paper are claimed to represent mainstream medical organizations, while a sole paper by Narth is identified as just one therapist. Nowhere is it documented why ex-gays themselves volunteer for this treatment, nor is the paper presented at NARTH given as much weight. Joshuajohanson 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The first policy exception you cited only applies to "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" (e.g., People Can Change). The second guideline exception you cite only applies where there are "identifiable, expert" moderators and in a field where experts traditionally publish online. Here, there are no such identified experts, and RT experts do not traditionally publish online (see NARTH, Throckmorton, etc.). Fireplace 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the mainstream attribution, I went in and fixed it. Fireplace 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think it provides valuable insight as to the ex-gay point of view. Something needs to be said from their perspective. Could we reword it so that it doesn't seem like a scientific survey, maybe something like People Can Change have said, or something like that? Why is this not permissible, but the damaging quote that the sole reason for this movement is to "to roll back legal protections." That seems to be self-published and does "involve claims about third parties." You need to apply the same standard to both articles. Joshuajohanson 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be much less opposed to using the source if the article's language didn't try to infer from it sweeping claims about "the top reasons for people wanting to change". If it's simply being used for the banal and uncontroversial claim that "Some people want to change for religious reasons," (etc.) I won't fuss (under the theory that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and weak claims require weak sources). On the other hand, there are probably better sources out there. Fireplace 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put some stuff in with a cite to a pretty good newspaper article. The article doesn't hit everything I listed, but it can be supplemented as people stumble onto sources. Again, it's not controversial that some people seek RT because of, say, fear of rejection, so a great source isn't necessary. Fireplace 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your arguments were fair, and I really like that particular section now. I would like to see all sections like that. I wasn't trying to disagree with the fact that social pressure played a part, just that it wasn't the only part, as it seemed to me that the section previously implied. As you mentioned before, I am new to this, so I am a little unfamiliar as to what can be expected. I just want to make sure that the article is NPOV. I still think it is POV, but we are working together to provide a solution, so I won't argue that you took the flag off. You seem to know more sources than me. I am doing research and finding out all that I can and am working on beefing up related articles. My main source is personal experience, which I obviously can't write about, and does give me a little bias. However I will argue when something outright contradicts what is happening in the ex-gay community.Joshuajohanson 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good show! Fireplace 20:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major organizations reject reparative therapy

In the joint statement denouncing reparative therapy for youth, they stated that the most important fact about reparative therapy was that it rejects the understanding that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. That is the view that the whole article is combating, so I think it is very permissible to say that is why they reject reparative therapy. They define reparative therapies as one that believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, but the fact is that this article talks about a variety of treatments to alter one's orientation or diminish same-gender attractions, many of which would not fit into reparative therapy according this definition. We should not make it sound this council is rejecting those treatments, since they fall under a different category. The exact statement from Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation is as follows:

“

The term "reparative therapy" refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires and is used by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion" therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure."

”

Maybe we shouldn't call therapies that do not believe homosexuality is a mental disorder as reparative therapies. In any case, it should be clear that these other therapies are not being rejected.Joshuajohanson 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The mainstream medical view does not reject reparative therapy because it views homosexuality as a mental disorder, but because it tries to change people's sexual orientation in spite of all the usual problems (lack of empirical evidence, potential for harm, etc.). See throughout [3], [4], [5], [6]. Fireplace 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still not seeing your justification. The fact is that they do allow physcologists to treat or refer clients to treatments that are aimed at altering sexual orientation. That just doesn't jive with the claim that they reject it. Your links don't help either. This is all I gather from the links:

• Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth says these organizations do not support reparative therapies, with the most important fact about reparative therapy being that it rejects their understanding of homosexuality. It does not make a statement on their support for transformational ministries and other therapies aimed at diminishing same-gender attraction that do not fall under their definition of reparative therapies. They only say that public schools should be aware of potential risks, which they outline. Even so, not supporting something doesn’t mean they are rejecting it. If so, they wouldn’t allow for therapeutic treatments to alter sexual orientation at all. Besides, this statement is aimed at how untrained faculty at schools approach kids about it. Their advice to trained professionals dealing with adults is different.

• Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality doubts their effectiveness and again warns of potential harms as well as expressing concerns, but doesn’t reject them. Again, it does not mention transformational ministries or other therapies aimed at diminishing same-gender attraction.

• ACA in the News again limits their statements to counselors that “view same-sex attractions and behaviors as abnormal and unnatural and, therefore, in need of curing." Still, they allow counselors to refer their clients to these therapies, giving them a list of things to watch.

• Official Statement Concerning Homosexuality from the American Academy of Pediatrics says therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated since it provokes guilty and anxiety. That is one of the precautions that is listed in the APA’s techniques. It says nothing about therapies that simply want to diminish attractions or stop homosexual behavior.

So yeah, there are doubts to their effectiveness, concerns about potential harm, and a lack of support for some (not all) of these therapies. Medical organizations still allow therapists to practice or refer clients to reparative therapies, so it shouldn’t sound like an outright rejection of reparative therapies. There are also statements saying it should be offered because of "(a)respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons, (b)respect for valuative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and (c) service provision given the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful." [7] So don't make it sound like all statements about reparative therapy are negative. I am not against listing out concerns, risks and the fact that these claims are not verifiable.

Again I reiterate that this article talks about a variety of therapies, not all of them claiming that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that they are able to change sexual orientation, which are the therapies that these statements are about. I am against making it sound like these organizations are unsupportive of all of these therapies.

To summarize, the article should not imply:

• medical organizations prohibit all forms of reparative therapy
• statements against reparative therapy are also directed against all therapies aimed at diminshing same-sex attractions, such as transformational ministries.

Joshuajohanson 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the first summary point, the article does not say or imply that mainstream scientific and medical organizations "prohibit" any or all attempts to change sexual orientation.

With respect to the second summary point, the mainstream medical and scientific view is that attempts to change sexual orientation are not effective and are potentially harmful. See [8] ("Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.", "NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so."), [9] ("Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No.... homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."), [10] ("The report... rejects the theory that homosexuality is a reversible lifestyle."), [11] ("most mainstream mental health professionals dismiss attempts to eradicate homosexual desires or to change someone’s sexual orientation as quackery that is potentially harmful."). No distinction is made between whether the attempt involves psychoanalysis (e.g.) or prayer (e.g.).

Finally, Yarhouse/Throckmorton do not represent the standard scientific/medical view. They are both outspoken advocates of the ex-gay/RT movement(s). Fireplace 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say medical organizations don't view attempts to change orientation as ineffective and potentially harmful. I didn't say some organization discourage it. I only said I haven't seen anywhere were they have said “we reject treatments to alter orientation.” Present the facts about what they said. Nothing more. Say American Academy of Pediatrics say it is contraindicated. Say medical organizations told high school faculty members that they do not support it for high school students. Don't say they reject it. Don't say their objections to reparative therapy carry over to transformational ministries. That is misleading. Exercise is "potentially harmful", and there are warnings on all of the exercise equipment. It doesn't mean medical organizations reject exercise. How can you say they reject treatments to alter orientation if they give guidelines on how to do it? Journalists don't completely understand what is happening in medical field. I want to see it from the medical field itself.

Finally, Yarhouse may be an advocate for reparative therapy, but that article was published by the APA. (Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75) Throckmorton has also published in the APA. Don't dismiss them because they don't express your point of view.Joshuajohanson 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. The Norcross reference has reparative therapy classed as a discredited therapy. Thats a survey of the American Psychological Society (101 respondents). I think that could be clarified in the article. Just stated as it is in the paper. Docleaf 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, I think it may be more clear to the reader if various therapies used for RT are outlined. For example, I remember reading that Buddha therapy, back manipulations, and acupuncture are sometimes used for RT. Docleaf 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All this is very well but continues to ignore the fact that there has been very little serious research into the origins and nature of homosexuality - Major organisations may reject RT but they do so on the basis of politics not research. Show me the research that conclusively proves that homosexual orientation can't be changed and I will change my tune. Anecdotal evidence shows that it can and some studies I have read suggest that some "spontaneously" change their orientation with no intervention at all. Little of this gets documented making it very hard to study. The truth is that nearly all research surrounding the subject is compromised in one way or another largely because the subject is so politicised. If we are dealing with politics of sexual orientation then the views and opinions of the reparative therapists are just as valid as anyone else's and should be fairly represented in an article dealing with the subject.

If you were to write an article on liberalism - it would be grossly unrepresentative just to talk of it in terms of a socialist response to liberalism. You'd want to talk about differing perspectives on liberalism but this wouldn't be the main focus.

Let's see both / all sides of this argument fairly reflected in the article. The way it reads at the moment makes it sound as if it is seriouisly dodgy and as safe as wiring up your home with bare wires. Now from your POV you may feel that it is about as safe as wiring your home with bare wires, but to many others (myself included) it has been a lifeline. There is room for both opinions to be fairly represented within the article.

More balance please!Robert Williams 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I think begin to address these concerns. Fireplace 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, yes I think this is definitely a step in the right direction - it needs beefing up a bit but it's a good start. I think a critical thing is to change the opening section (this has been mentioned by others) so that it gives a more balanced introduction to the subject. The reader needs to understand that there are two strongly held and diametrically oposed POVs on this subject and that it is controvertial. This is the essence of the story we must tell about RT - rightly or wrongly people have taken sides in this debate but the job of an encyclopedia article is not to be partial - we must simply present the facts and allow people to decide one way or the other.

I did think that the third paragraph which includes mention of "the Christian Right" was rather extreme and perhaps a little bigoted (as I have mentioned before by no means are all Christians are right wing) - but this is obviously their view (and again needs to be fairly represented) - perhaps you could reorganise the two quotes in this paragraph so that they are more obviously quotes. The second paragraph should be balanced with the RT view perhaps the NARTH view of the matter. Thank you, with this improvement and with a few other more minor ones, I think we could drop the NPOV dispute. Perhaps we can then look at getting the article upto A class? What do others contributing on this subject think? Robert Williams 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should just point out that I am Down Under and that it will take a day for me to respond to posts. Robert Williams 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to distinguish position statements on all therapies to diminish homosexual attractions/behaviors and those directed at the ones that are based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that sexual orientation is reversible, like Richard Cohen and NARTH. References to statements that orientation cannot be changed do not discredit all theories. Statements prohibiting practicing treatments that say homosexuality is a mental disorder should not be applied to all treatments. This article is about all treatments to alter one's orientation, including transformational ministries. A previous version of this article reads "The ethics guidelines of these organizations discourage, and sometimes prohibit, its practice." I see nothing in the ethics guidelines that ever prohibit treatments like transformational ministries that don't work on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Instead of saying "sometimes prohibits it" say when it prohibits what.Joshuajohanson 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The American Psychiatric Association's position statement

Here is the position statement. The appendix, a 1998 publication, states that the organization hasn't issued a formal position statement on reparative therapy. The publication itself, released in 2000, is titled "Therapies on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies): Position Statement." There's been an edit controversy over whether the 2000 document constitutes a formal position statement on reparative therapy. I don't understand why this is controversial. Fireplace 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The 2000 statement "augments, rather than replaces the 1998 statement." It "expands" and "elaborates" the previous statement. It doesn't "outdate" it. So in essense, the 1998 statement is a part of the 2000 statement. They are very clear on that. The 1998 statement says "The American Psychiatric Association does not currently have a formal position statement on treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation." It makes lots of other positions statements, including opposition to certain therapies that are based on the fact that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Its not void of statements. The 2000 statements also adds additional statements and recommendations. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a formal statement. It just doesn't make a statement on those treatments. It "recommends" "refraining" from attempting to change a client's orientation, while keeping in mind to "First, do no harm". Refraining? Keep in mind to do no harm? What does that mean? What harm? I don't know. Maybe it is in reference to the 1998's statement of appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behavior (maybe deeply held religious beliefs?) Maybe the fact that there are "no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." I think it is purposely ambiguous in order to avoid making a formal statement. It doesn't undo, outdate or any way counter the 1998 statement that there is no formal statement on treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation. The 1998 statment is a valid one.Joshuajohanson 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're jumping through interpretative hoops to create ambiguity where there is none. The APA makes a very clear argument: there is no reliable evidence in support of RT and, in light of anecdotal evidence of harm RT causes and the general rule not to do harm, they recommend that ethical practitioners not attempt to change people's sexual orientation.

Even if you could argue that the APA is implicitly drawing a mysterious distinction between a "position statement" and a "formal position statement", that distinction isn't relevant to the article itself. Their "position" (whether you want to call it "formal" or not) is explicit. Fireplace 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The NARTH website has this reference (http://www.narth.com/docs/available.html) to an APA Journal article which suggests that it would be un-ethical to with hold therapy from those requesting it. Even within the APA camp there are differing opinions on the issue. Attempts to have Reparative Therapy banned by the APA have, so far at least, not been sucessful. I don't know how to reference the original journal article - if either of you can get hold of a link I'd be interested to read it. For my part at least I am glad that attempts to ban RT have been unsuccessful.  :) Robert Williams 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace - I can't access the position statement you reference. Robert Williams 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the article Fireplace (and I) referenced: http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200001.pdf http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm (non-pdf)

Here is the article NARTH references: http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych215/Yarhouse%20sex%20conversion%20tx%202002.pdf

Joshuajohanson 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ill have a read (sorry the apostrophe is misbehaving on my keyboard!) Robert Williams 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: be careful not to confuse the two APAs. The position statement discussed above was from the psychiatrists, whereas the NARTH reference you cite is from the psychologists. Fireplace 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does the new banner leave us? - Can we continue to edit this article make / comments about it or should we wait? Robert Williams 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can keep editing it. That is a very mild banner. All that means is that there has been some discussions that neither side really knows the answer to and we would like some help. There is still plenty to be done on the article that we don't need an expert for.Joshuajohanson 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)