Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removed recent change...

I have removed the recent change[1] made by User:Peculiar Light. Here is the reason I posted on PL's page:

Exodus International and Ex-gay movement

Hi, though it probably was not intentional, your use of the citation for EI creates a POV implication that is not true. EI has, on numerous occasions, claimed people can be cured of being gay. They simply have the caveat that not all people can be (and the rest should abstain).

The statement you cited was used to try to prove (or unintentionally created the implication) that EI is against therapists who try to cure being gay. The truth, on the other hand is that they are simply against "therapists" who claim (promise ahead of time) they can cure ALL gay people as, per their own statements, MANY can be "cured".

Perhaps you can think of a better place to put it so it does not support an inaccurate POV? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between saying change is possible and change is guaranteed. Neither the APA nor Exodus thinks counselors should guarantee to change sexual orientation. The current wording makes it sound like Exodus does support treatments that guarantee to change sexual orientation. It should be clear Exodus in fact wards against it. Peculiar Light (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your changed wording made it sound like they do not support change therapy at all. From reading that whole page, it seems what Exodus supports are people using their therapists and programs, or those of their affiliates, or those of other bodies/groups who Exodus approves of. And, to keep it balanced, if you do indicate they do not support such guarantees, you should probably cite their somewhat conflicting statements on the matter, including their "research". I'm open to suggestions - other than POV pushing of course. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Immutable sexual orientation

The APA task force found that "no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". This was removed from the article and replaced with "explain that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic." The APA report also said sexual orientation identity can be changed. This was just deleted. I propose we put it back in. Peculiar Light (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation identity is different from sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is immutable characteristic.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 23:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an assertion. If we have RS that state such, and others that dispute it, we have to cover both viewpoints per NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree sexual orientation identity is different. The APA quote was about sexual orientation. "no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". Peculiar Light (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to once again suggest, for this, the fourth occurence in as many days, that you are trying to mischaracterize the statement and report by using a tiny snippet to support a specific POV. Please stop. You cannot do this without taking into account the rest of the article to provide proper balance and perspective, including the next sentence, and the preceding and following paragraphs. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything I have read supports that sexual orientation identity can change, and there is no evidence whether or not sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. The references provided that sexual orientation is immutable do not provide that claim. If you can provide references, I might see your point, but you can't just argue to exclude the findings of the APA task force because it you claim it mischaracterizes something that you have no references for. Please provide references or I will put my references assertion in. Peculiar Light (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, sexual orientation identity is not sexual orientation. You keep citing things on identity and then try to use it for orientation related matters. Hope that explains why you keep running into these repeated counter-arguments. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am making a distinction. The APA task force said sexual orientation identity could be changed while there is no evidence whether or not sexual orientation can be changed. I am making a distinction between the two. The quote "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation" is about sexual orientation and not about sexual identity. There is no reason not to include this in the article. It is not about sexual orientation identity. The quote about sexual orientation identity was "sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation, appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, or life events". The article should be clear that sexual orientation identity can change through psychotherapy, support groups, or life events, but that there is no evidence whether or not sexual orientation can change through SOCE. Peculiar Light (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still do not see a cite or quote indicating that the APA said that ("identity could be changed"). Nonetheless, you have avoided adequately addressing JClemens' note above. I see where you are going, and I agree that some mention needs to be made, but you have provided nothing to support it. I've already cited (and helped revise) the "immutable" statement. Now, let's work on the other parts of it, but with something for me to work with so I can help. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The APA report did in fact say that identity can change:

The available evidence, from both early and recent studies, suggests that although sexual orientation is unlikely to change, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) and other aspects of sexuality (i.e. values and behavior).

(emph. mine) This element of the report should be expanded upon in the article. Peculiar's addition should be restored.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionelt, I uh said that. ;-) But it must be used in context. And the question remains, how. Conversion therapy and such is about changing one's orientation or suppressing one's desires and hiding their orientation (ie: how they identify), so, as noted on Peculiar Light's page, I agree - but in the right place, and in context. PL accidentally added it out of context originally, in context since (but perhaps in the wrong place? Dunno - I wasnt the one who removed it). And it's a tough one to place, so no fault of PL on that. A lot of this is, especially since things seem to keep getting tacked on. It's like a bunch of people put "this side said this" and then a bunch more come in and put "yeah, well this side said this!", to the point where the article is getting more jumbled or incoherent (but yeah, I think we all know that). So, why don't we start a separate section on the talk page where we can discuss how and where we talk about how people identify as opposed to what their orientation is? But alas, like all of this stuff, let's stop deleting one side or the other. Not you specifically, but all of us. This article keeps going back and forth a lot.

One other thing... there is a User:Lionel, so it's rather confusing when your sig comes up as "Lionel" instead of "Lionelt" - dunno if you thought about that. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I was wondering why people kept saying "Lionelt not Lionel." This makes sense. Well the other guy is going to have to change his username. What is the name of that username noticeboard again? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Other therapies

It seems odd to focus on therapies that the APA doesn't recommend. Why is there no mention of therapies that the APA does recommend? The APA task force talks about using sexual orientation identity exploration to help a person change their sexual orientation identity. I propose that we talk about the therapy the APA recommends for ex-gays. Peculiar Light (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This would definitely add balance to the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"The APA task force talks about using sexual orientation identity exploration to help a person change their sexual orientation identity." No, that is not the goal of identity exploration. To quote the report, "An affirmative approach is supportive of clients’ identity development without an a priori treatment goal for how clients identify or live out their sexual orientation." (emphasis added.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, the reason would quite honestly be, because the APA does not recommend ANY therapies for changing one's sexual orientation, which is the road PL seems to be repeatedly trying to walk down recently. As a matter of fact, they are against it (as cited in the article itself, and quoted on this page). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I am not trying to walk down that path. This article is not about sexual orientation change efforts. We have an another article for that. This is about ex-gays. The APA actually lists an ex-gay sexual orientation identity as an acceptable outcome of sexual orientation identity exploration, and that a counselor should be okay with that identity if that is where the client wishes to go. This is an article on the ex-gay movement and we should include the therapy that the APA recommends for it. I agree it is not sexual orientation change efforts. It is sexual orientation identity exploration. Peculiar Light (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above. You seem to repeatedly be confusing "identity" with "orientation". While you have been citing/mentioning (on the talk page) that the APA is fine with people seeking therapy for exploring their sexual identity, you seem to continuously be attempting to make (or suggest) changes indicating that they are ok with treatments designed to change that identity or orientation. There is a big difference. The grossly oversimplified summarization of what the APA says is "What you claim is your sexual identity is how you identify yourself, and we are against someone trying to change that". I do not see explicity support for the "therapies" in question that are aimed at both orientation and identity, and as noted above, they are rather against such therapies. Still waiting on properly used cites that say otherwise. Please feel free to provide some and I'll gladly help you come up with different prose to suggest to everyone else. But when you do so, please do not resort to "brevity" again - it portrays (as it has in the past) an incorrect synthesis of what's actually being said. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When I am discussing other therapies, I am NOT suggesting therapies that seek to change orientation. I am suggesting discussing what the APA suggests, which is "The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome." No specific sexual orientation outcome should be imposed by the counselor, and the client is free to explore any possible outcome, including gay, straight, ex-gay or none. I think we should have a paragraph discussing what the APA suggests, which is sexual orientation identity exploration and development. Once again, I am not suggesting we write about therapies that change orientation and identity. I am suggesting we report what the APA says, which I really think it is ridiculous that we have to debate for a week to report what the APA reports.Peculiar Light (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what relevance you are trying to imply. They do nothing of the sort, nor recommend anything of the sort. They recommend allowing/facilitating the patient to do so if that is the patient's desire. They do not suggest it or suggest others suggest it. Totally different meaning than the one you are trying to imply. As for your first sentence, earlier, when you took one of their statements out of context, you did indeed suggest such. So, again, you are synthesizing your own interpretation, fallacious as it also happens to be, of something they didnt actually say. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

People associated with the ex-gay movement

A citation needed tag was added to this article in an entry in People associated with the ex-gay movement. In attempting to find a citation, I have found the entry (Donnie Davies) is not a person, but a fictional character, thus I have removed the entry as opposed to adding a cite. If anyone objects and believes that fictitious characters should be included in that list, then perhaps it should be discussed here, including renaming that category to something more indicative of what will be in it. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This List of People is simply a list of testimonials. It tells nothing about the ex-gay movement itself, it just names some people who supposedly advocate it; but the argument pro hominem indicates nothing. A thousand celebrities can testify that homeopathic remedies cause global warming, but their opinions contain no information and are therefore nothing but advertising. The List of Testimonials should be deleted, as should any others that may appear in related articles, or anywhere. Such lists cannot be reliably verified, need constant maintenance, and risk someone changing their mind retroactively and then blaming Wikipedia for defaming them. Ornithikos (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, some comments (ie: I disagree with your assessment):

• I see no list of testimonials
• Though you may not have noted it (as the revert was just recent), the list includes those who have left under controversy

• In perusing the first 15 or so, the majority of the people there are ones associated with an Ex-gay group/organization or have turned their company's focus into supporting such.

That's a lot different than simply advocating it. As for "changed their mind", easy fix. Feel free to add "On (date)..." to each. And many articles on Wikipedia need constant maintenance (which is why we are here), so I do not see an issue with that either. This list has been discussed numerous times, and currently is probably the closest to consensus it's been in a while. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ornithikos; the list should be deleted. "People associated with" is too vague and too subjective for a list, and creates problems with original research, such as including people on the list even if the sources used don't explicitly say that they are "associated with" the ex-gay movement. Things like this shouldn't simply be left to the judegement of editors. Viramag (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The list is fine. These sections are fairly common. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that large part of this list should be removed. Many people, like Camille Paglia for example, are in fact no assosiated with ex-gay movement. This is a potential BLP bomb.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwind brings up a good concern. With that concern noted, I still am for keeping the list, with a lot of cleanup though. Such as...

• Removed: Camille Paglia (BLP Concerns, no association noted in text or info cited)
• With that done, I agree we should go through it for any similar issues (for same reasons Wikiwind wrote - and of course because if there's no association noted via a reliable source, we shouldn't be putting them in that list regardless of BLP concerns).
• I've got a lot of work, but I will try to go through them in the next couple days for any of that specific criteria - and only such. I will remove them one by one and place their name in the edit summary, that way if anyone disagrees or find a supporting ref, we can simply undo a single entry instead of trying to rebuild the info that was removed.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 14:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing Paglia. If you include her on a list called "People associated with the ex-gay movement", that implies that she is actually a member of or supporter of an ex-gay organization, which she isn't. Viramag (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan "converted out of homosexuality" Berry

Someone made unintentional error, and wrote that Jonathan is "converted out of homosexuality at the age of 24". A removed that sentence. Here is what Jonathan writes in his "story":1

"I should state that I have not been “healed” or “cured” or “delivered” of homosexuality. My experience now is that God gives me grace daily to live a celibate and, I would stress, a very fulfilled life as a single man. My struggles with same-sex attraction did not end at conversion, as many Christians might assume. I am aware that I have "feet of clay", as we all do, and that I will have to face weaknesses as my journey continues. Those times are the opportunity for me to receive God’s mercy, love and forgiveness. He has set me free from captivity to sin, and despite my own sinful desires, he is keeping me from returning to that captivity. I’m also discovering, through my ongoing struggles with same-sex attraction the reality that God’s power is made perfect in weakness and that when I am weak, then I am strong."

Best.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 16:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

List content

I don't understand Jclemens's contention that anyone and everyone with a blog who says they're not gay can be on this list. Per WP:NNC, "some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people" - my edit fell far short even of that guideline, as I just removed anything without a secondary source, however trivial. Surely this is not unreasonable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's go back to what this article is about. Is it about the idea of being "ex-gay", or is it about the movement of those who believe in and advocate for such a category, propose therapies, etc.? If it's to remain a movement article, then we need to talk about the people involved in the movement. Some of them aren't individually notable, but are covered in sources. All those entries were unsourced until a few days ago, and had existed for months or years, with no sourcing. I've sourced them. Now seems like a particularly inopportune time to remove them. If you'd like to help improve the sourcing, I'd welcome it, but again--I don't see how we can cover a "movement" without covering the key people involved. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But how "key" is a person covered in no secondary sources - however inferior those secondary sources, and however trivial the mention? And if the article is truly to be about the movement rather than a list of "success stories," why do we have a list? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Success stories? If they're unbalanced, by all means balance them by adding more and increasing the coverage. Since each entry has at least one entry, I'd like you to go through and try to source the entries to which you object. I fully grant that I may have grabbed less than optimum sources when I went through and found one source for every entry that didn't have one. I got most of the ones in question from standard Google searches, rather than Google News searches, so there may clearly be other, better sources. I've never added an entry to the list, and am not familiar enough with the topic to guess how best to expand it; my involvement has been limited to fixing problems. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear: if the relevance of these individuals to the movement cannot be demonstrated, they should not be included. Particularly because of the BLP- and NPOV-sensitive nature of the topic, the burden of finding reliable sources weighs even heavier upon those users who wish to add material, so that we avoid using Wikipedia to promote fringe theories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

By all means, you can start discussions here on particular entries you find improper, but remember that WP:SELFPUB applies to many of these entries: not every source need be "reliable" in the sense of independently published by an organization with a reputation for fact-checking to be used. Again: I've done my part--now do yours: help write a good article covering the movement. If you're here because you believe the movement shouldn't be covered at all, I don't think I can help you. The movement exists, and unfortunately, activists come along from either side once in a while and decide that they want to write a hagiography or eviscerate the content here, while neither is compatible with an NPOV encyclopedia. WP:FRINGE shouldn't apply to this article, because it is about the people involved--the theories involved should be discussed at conversion therapy or homosexuality and psychology. So, if you have a problem with an entry that's been sourced, bring it here and explain what your objection is and how we can fix it together. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be obvious that the ones I removed and that you restored were the problematic ones, but here we are:

1. Jonathan Berry: sourced only to an organization he works for, nothing in GNews or GBooks.
2. Martin Hallett: sourced only to an organization he works for. Trivial passing mentions in an already-short Telegraph article, in a Dutch article I couldn't read, and in an op-ed by an opponent of gay rights. GBooks mentions are in pay-to-publish books or otherwise questionable sources, except for those which are likewise trivial.
3. James Hartline: sourced only to an organization he works for. Significant coverage in one local magazine and borderline coverage in some other local papers of varying quality.
4. David Matheson: sourced only to organizations he works for and to amateur film trailer. Couple of trivial quotes and some slightly more in-depth coverage of a retreat he runs, but not of him personally.
5. Jason Park: sourced only to his blog and to organizations he works for. One lonely and extremely trivial mention in GBooks.
6. Greg Quinlan: sourced only to an organization he works for. Trivial quoting in a number of GNews articles, but nothing significant that indicates he is influential or notable.
7. Kristin J. Tremba: sourced only to an organization she works for. Mentioned in a promotional context in a fringe-y Zondervan book; trivially quoted in one Christian Post article.
8. Rich Wyler: sourced only to an organization he works for and to a Blogspot blog. Recent NPR coverage (the segment was criticized, but I don't think this confers any extra notability on Wyler himself). As with Matheson, there's minimal coverage here about the retreat these two run, but little about Wyler.

It would be ridiculous to say that most of these people are here because they have been influential in the "ex-gay" movement. They are here because users who preceded you wanted to create a catalog of alleged successes and went hunting around the websites of "ex-gay" organizations for names. We are not bound to keep this catalog around. (Note also that I don't endorse the ones I did not remove, as I'm sure that I would find that the secondary sources cited provided only trivial coverage in most cases.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides the obvious "SELFPUB" definitely applies to a "self" discussing such as Jclemens pointed out, I for one think it quite relevant to have people who've been involved with the movement whether as the organizers/show-runners, or as vocal critics or supporters or patients, of how it affected them. On that note, Roscelese, I do wish to mention something, which I'd rather not take the time to dig up right now, but if you think the list is unbalanced in portraying too many people who weren't "cured" (or whatever), the simple fact is, there are numerous outside studies that show such is actually very very very rare. That's not a road you'd want to travel down as justification for changing the balance of the list, unless you wanted it to be 15% "cured" and the rest not. Also, a little expansion on what Jclemens said above: WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to articles dedicated to notable fringe. This is a fringe movement (nothing derogatory meant by that - it simply is; it's not beliefs held by any medical organization or the majority of religious ones). It is notable for various reasons. Thus, this article is discussing fringe and thus will include fringe to the level applicable to it's very nature. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you're citing the statistics (what do you think I am suggesting?), but in any case, re: SELFPUB - it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card. These individuals and organizations have their own websites, so we shouldn't be duplicating them by using SELFPUB as justification for inserting large gobs of material that do not appear in reliable secondary sources. #1 ("so long as the material is not unduly self-serving") and #5 ("so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources" - read "section" for "article") are relevant here. (Similarly, WP:FRINGE is only partly about the weight given to fringe claims in general articles: it states, "A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." - emphasis added.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're stretching too far. "his own blog" and "an organization he works for" are the best type of SELFPUB sources for BLP material. The threshold for items to be included in a notable topic is that V is met, and SELFPUB material can be used in limited circumstances to meet V. I don't think you'd win an argument on "unduly self serving"--these gents have allied themselves with a movement rejected by the scientific and medical mainstream, based on their own belief systems. Likewise, the article here is not primarily based on SELFPUB sources, and trying to substitute "section" for "article" may make sense to you, but doesn't help us cover the topic in an encyclopedic fashion. Still, I will go through and see what else I can dig up on the guys you've identified as problematic, even though I reject the notion that the sourcing is insufficient as it stands: just because I think it's adequate doesn't mean it can't be better. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published and affiliated sources aren't a verifiability problem - it's that if no other sources can be found for the material, it generally doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This is what personal blogs and non-Wiki websites are for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. Please read WP:NNC and explain how your opinion reconciles with that policy. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies"...and weight is determined by coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet none of these guys gets more than a sentence. How can that be UNDUE? You're entirely welcome to seek a consensus that a mere listing of these folks with a one-sentence summary is UNDUE coverage, but I think that's far too tenuous an argument--it seems almost pretextual. If the real thing you're looking for is "balance" because there are too many "success stories" here, then by all means let's achieve balance by augmenting the list with other entries, not eliminating acceptably-sourced non-notable content. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think finding more (potentially just as poorly sourced) stories of the inevitable failure of conversion therapy is the right way to go. The article should discuss the movement, not list insignificant people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the movement if not the people? There are a few organizations, such as Exodus, NARTH, and and Love Won Out, but there are also a large number of independent partisans, and that's exactly the sort of folks who would be excluded. Our coverage would be impoverished thereby, and I'm still not seeing a good reason why. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time responding - I'm just having difficulty wrapping my brain around this reasoning. So to cover the Tea Party, we should list names of Tea Party supporters and cite their personal PAC profiles as sources? The appropriate way to cover the animal rights movement, rather than gathering facts from newspapers and academic literature, is to list a bunch of vegan blogs? Isn't it better to cover the activities of these people, as reported in reliable secondary sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens, I guess that leaves me unclear of the point of this list. If it's to be a complete directory of everyone who supports this movement, then either the movement is trivial in size or this is going to be a silly long list. (And I'd hate to see what a page like, say, Jews would be like if that were a criterion.) Wouldn't seem to be encyclopedic in content. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously not a complete directory, but neither is it burdensomely long. For a relatively small movement that's intentionally ignored by mainstream press, including these folks is appropriate. Note that I haven't added or removed anyone from the list--just sourced people who'd been there previously, and then reverted the deletion of sourced content without appropriate rationale. If there's a desire to work on more nuanced inclusion criteria, then by all means start that discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if these folks have not received significant coverage in the mainstream press or in academic treatments of the movement, they are not notable for WP purposes, and there is nothing appropriate about mentioning them at all in this article. Information on any individual or self-described group that has not received independent third-party coverage in a reliable source should be deleted per WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT. An SPS cannot be used to establish the notability of the self-publisher. Any clown can put up a web page and claim that they represent a "group" or "movement". Independent third-party coverage is how WP distinguished the clowns from the real players. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability (WP:N) only determines whether an article should exist or not. It does not apply to article content. Sourced content, even by a self pub sources, is valid for inclusion, other policies notwithstanding. See WP:V. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. WP:NOTE also applies to people in lists like this. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA also apply. Without independent third-party confirmation of notability, we have no way of knowing whether these people are clowns or real players. We can't just simply take their word for it. SPS's are worthless for establishing notability or determining weight. WP articles should be based on what secondary sources have to say. Primary sources should be used with extreme caution, and not at all if they are self-serving. If reliable third-party secondary sources have nothing to say about a person, that means that WP should say nothing as well. That would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Making a "movement" out of an indiscrimiante list of unrelated individuals culled from a Google search clearly violates both of these policies as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your opening assertion is incorrect. Individual list items need not be notable, period. Note that WP:LISTPEOPLE is a MOS entry, which a) conflicts with WP:NNC which is a policy, and b) only applies to stand-alone lists, which this is not. WP:WEIGHT is part of NPOV and discusses views; it is not applicable to lists of people, since lists of people are not views. WP:TRIVIA does not apply either, since a list of people associated with a movement is a perfectly valid and appropriate content for an article on that movement. You've listed three inapplicable reasons to trim the list; how about talking about how the information portrayed in this article can be improved to give the reader the best possible picture of the movement? Guidelines and policies exist to serve the readers by cluing in editors on how to provide good content--don't focus on them so much as how to present the information most appropriately. Finally, you appear to be blurring the distinction between primary sources and self-published sources, which are different creatures. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If an editor wants something or someone mentioned at all in WP, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that it or they are worthy of mention in the first place per WP:WEIGHT, and that they are really connected with the topic of the article. They also have to demonstrate that the individuals in question are part of the "movement", and not just completely isolated individuals of little or no actual significance to the movement as a whole. To do so, they must cite reliable secondary sources. Otherwise that would be original research and synthesis. WP:TRIVIA certainly applies; indiscriminately mentioning everyone who claims to belong to the movement on the basis of their own self-published web pages or scanty, passing mention in low-grade secondary sources does not improve the article. Again, many, if not most, of the SPS's cited in the article are self-serving and self-promotional, so they absolutely cannot be used to establish due weight. Sorry, but significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is indeed required for inclusion in the article. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN. In short, you have failed to make a case for including the individuals Roscelese has listed above in the article. The only reason you gave is that "including these folks is appropriate" because they have been "intentionally ignored by mainstream press", and that is, frankly, WP:BOLLOCKS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wishing that policies said what you want them to say just doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. The only new argument you've identified, rather than simply repeated is that there is some sort of inclusion criterion other than self-identification. There isn't. Like any movement, this movement is made up of people who've self-identified with it. There is no "ex-gay-movement membership card", but if there was such a creature, it would look an awful lot like the SPS that have been cited here: publicly espousing the unpopular ideas is all the "movement membership" that appears to exist. Bottom line: All list entries are cited to appropriate sources, so WP:BURDEN has been met. You're free to seek exclusion on the basis of other arguments--by all means, start a straw poll if you want--but trying to stretch sourcing criteria to say that someone's own personal website in which they tilt at the windmills of scientific consensus is "self-serving" unduly tortures the meaning of the words as written in WP:SELFPUB and elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If the goal is to include every single person who identifies with the movement, that would be a non-encyclopediacly long list, assuming this movement is not too trivial for Wikipedia. Any claim that the list will remain short because we won't get everybody is not an excuse; that the list will be a failure is a good reason for not including the list. It's hard to see the advantage of having a list of people who are not of noted import either within or without of this movement. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see which provision of WP:NOTDIR applies.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The one where Wikipedia is not a directory. Trying to list every member of a movement is like "a list of all the company's patent filings". We're not here to create a link to the blog of everyone who feels they're in a movement, just as the article on the Republic Party of the United States should not have a list of every registered Republican. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Part 2

The edit warring is unseemly. Please do not confuse failure to rehash positions indefinitely with agreement that the arguments in favor of removal of non-notable people have support: They do not. Allow me to be perfectly blunt here: there is no policy-based argument for the removal of non-notable people articulated above. To recap: WEIGHT applies to viewpoints, not individuals; WP:NNC; self-published sources are acceptable for these sorts of circumstances; WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply; WP:TRIVIA doesn't apply; WP:LISTPEOPLE is an MOS and WP:NNC supersedes it; and, finally on the basis of all of this, WP:BURDEN has been met. Saying "I think the info should not be in the article" isn't a policy-based reason for removal, and when one side of a discussion has no policy-based arguments on its side, consensus is clear: the side with policy on its side prevails, regardless of numerical odds, regardless of resting one's case. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just stating that "WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply" doesn't make it actually not apply. Claiming that "one side of a discussion has no policy-based arguments" doesn't actually make that claim true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course assertions aren't true just because they're stated; they're true because they're correct. Let's take WP:NOTDIR, for example. It has 8 facets, none of which apply to the content in question. My statement is true because it accurately reflects Wikipedia policy, not simply because I restated it. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

From where I stand, the material violates just about every WP policy I can think of, not only NOTDIR. It's not notable in the slightest, and downright trivial and irrelevant to the topic of the article. It's unsourced or poorly sourced, and probably unsourcable. It's OR and SYNTH. It's promotion to the point of being spam. It's highly POV, and I can't imagine a good faith motive for including it (and none has been provided except the extremely bullshit "these guys are unjustly ignored by the mainstream media" or "it's there already and we should attempt to save it", with a bullshit attempt to shift the burden of sourcing to those who want to get rid of it). It was clearly added to advance a political/religious cause. A mirror article of this list was recently deleted by overwhelming vote, and Lionelt's little ploy of shadow-publishing it on his user page likewise backfired. I'm sorry, but consensus has to be for INCLUDING this material, not EXCLUDING it. And no one has presented any good reasons to include it. Sorry, but if reliable third-party secondary sources have nothing to say about these individuals, WP shouldn't either. I've noticed that Jclemens has a philosophy of attempting to save material in WP articles instead of just deleting it, which is commendable in most cases. But I cannot see any point in doing so here, and none has been presented. The material simply has zero encyclopedic value. If you want, call for further comment with an RfC, or take it to a notice board. Right now, though, there is no consensus for including the material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the RfC (see below), and requested input on the Fringe Theories and Notability noticeboards, as well as the Christianity, LGBT Studies and Sexology and Sexuality project pages. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Let's take WP:NOTDIR, for example. It has 8 facets, none of which apply to the content in question." Except for facet 4, of course. The current limits for inclusion make this just as a much a directory for everyone who ever mentioned the ex-gay movement as a list of a company's patents is a directory for their patents. Oh, and #8. But other than those... --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Second guessing self-identification

I have a problem with this edit. People are the authoritative source for their own sexual orientation, are they not? If someone says he was converted from one to another, regardless of which way, why should we treat that as if it's a suspicious factoid which needs to be attributed to the person stating that they've converted? Note that there's a serious discussion about this going on at WT:BLP, which tends to favor self-identification as the primary, if not sole, basis on which people can be categorized. (of course, that's a gross oversimplification: go read it yourself. :-) ) Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess is because it is the difference between orientation and identification. People (historically) unless straight, tend not to be authoritative sources as to their orientation (heck, the list of mis-steps itself shows that) - only to how they wish to identify. I am not saying I support either wording. Oh, and I thought we'd had that discussion before (self identification as... whatever... Jewish, straight, gay, Martian, Vulcan, etc) and deemed that was the most acceptable method for such matters as the subject could hardly have a leg to stand on to dispute their own claims. Are we going once more around on that already? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ex-gay" is not sexual orientation. So, when we have statements "he is a former homosexual" or "she is a former lesbian", these statements are not about subjects sexual orientation, but about process in which he or she allegedly "changed" his/her sexual orientation. Because the mainstream science generally opose to sexual orientation change efforts, and because there is a growing concensus that sexual orientation is immutable characteristic, these statements are going against mainstream science, and should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not know if the person is referring to sexual orientation, sexual identification or behavior modification when they say "former homosexual." We cannot assume that they mean "sexual orientation" as defined by the APA. That is why MOS:IDENTITY proscribes that we use self-identification. I also support reverting the edit in question.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And also those references should be checked. For example, this Kristin ("former lesbian") in her story mentions lesbianism only once, and she never directly confirms that she was lesbian. Here what she writes on the beginning of her story: "I had been a Christian since I was five years old, the daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, yet I struggled with same sex attraction. I also had engaged in unhealthy relationships with men..."--В и к и в и н д T a L k 11:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If WP:BLP mandates that we take these people at their word, and report as fact that they are no longer gay, it is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV. Whether or not people can change their orientation at will is, to say the least, a matter of great controversy. 71.58.108.187 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then "claims to" type wording (ie: "claims to", "states", "claims", "says", etc) seems slightly more appropriate... "states" or "says" (or similar) may be even more appropriate, as it only indicates "(subject) says (something)" - others seem to introduce a POV either way, regardless of our intent. "Claims to" can be seen as dismissive, lack of anything makes it sound like Wikipedia is stating "This is fact", and "(subject) says..." simply says exactly that: "(subject) says..." Thoughts? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree: it should be "states", "says" or "self-identifies".--DVD-junkie | talk | 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A agree if wording needs to be fixed. To me, the most important is that those statements be attributed to that people. Any wording that achieve that goal is acceptable to me.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The APA holds the position that sexual orientation identification is changeable. There is nothing fringe about this. Jclemens point is well taken that we should not treat a BLP in this article as a "suspicious factoid".– Lionel ^(talk) 07:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

3 removed

I'm placing this above the RfC below because it's peripheral to the RfC and I don't want it to get interwined with that larger issue. Not sure about the thust of the RfC, but one thing I am sure of is that the Wikipedia is not for smearing unnotable peeople, and this is the essential core of WP:BLP. For this reason, I've removed from the list 3 people who 1) do not have Wikipedia articles and 2) are essentially presented in a negative light ("convicted of sexually assaulting a client... engaging in sexual acts with patients... found guilty for sexually assaulting..."). Whether this is true or not is not germane. We are not a police blotter and not here to report on the sorrows and failings of private citizens, period (and here I am defining "private citizens" as persons not notable enough to have an article). If someone wants to restore these entries but without the smears, that would be arguably justifiable. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

They were as appropriately sourced, or more so, than the majority of individuals on the list. We can't remove them just because they make the movement look bad. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Collin Cook definitely belongs because he was a prominent figure in the movement as the founder of HA. Austin's notability rests on the notability of Renew Ministries and was affiliated with NARTH. If Renew Ministries is a significant force in the movement, or if Austin held a key position at NARTH, he should be included. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Terrence Lewis ever played a key role in the movement. It's sounds like his primary claim to fame is his molestation case, and that he was only a peripheral figure in the movement, if he was formally associated at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Yeah we can. I didn't say they weren't sourced, sourcing has nothing to do with this, it is a WP:BLP issue. I have no opinion on the article subject and am not motivated by any consideration about whether it makes any movement look good, bad, or indifferent. Private persons are not be collateral damage for any reason. @Dominus Vobisdu: If Colin Cook et al are notable, make and defend an NPOV article about them. Absent the existence of an article, I'm assuming they're not notable. Since this is a BLP issue, WP:BRD doesn't apply (I think) and I've again removed the material, and opened a thread at the BLP Noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#3 persons at Ex-gay movement. I'd suggest it best to hash it out there before restoring the objectionable material. Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable for inclusion in an article is not the same as notable for one's own article. Sorry, that argument doesn't wash. As for BLP problems, both Austin and Cook are reliably sourced in accordance with that policy. I see no problem here. If you do, please explain in detail. Simply flashing around "BLP" won't do. Restoring them for the time being so the commenting editors can see the material they are supposed to comment on in context. I agree that Lewis doesn't belong. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot assume that a person is not notable simply because there is not a Wikipedia article about them; that would imply that Wikipedia is done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The "they aren't notable" argument doesn't hold water here because plenty of other people on the list are even less notable. That's why there's a big RFC on the issue right below. What I'd like Herostratus to answer is why his "private persons" rationale only applies when the private persons in question are criminals. It seems like a very weak attempt to censor negative (but well-sourced) information about this movement while retaining positive (but poorly sourced) information, ie. a WP:NPOV violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: List of people associated with the ex-gay movement.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [[2]]. Your input would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Include Notability doesn't apply to content per WP:NNC. The list entries are sourced. Note that SELFPUB allows self published and questionable sources to be used for information about themselves. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS. Per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP is not a collection of random junk information of dubious utility or relevance, as these list items are. Notability is indeed a key criterion for adding any material to WP. SPS's cannot be used to support notability about the authors of the sources themselves. That would violate WP:V. The criterion can be satisfied only on the basis of substantial mention in reliable third-party secondary sources.

The question here is whether a bunch of random insignificant self-promoting clowns with access to the internet who claim on their own websites or on websites of dubious reliability that they are part of the ex-gay movement should be included in this article in spite of the fact that no one with any solid credentials has ever taken them seriously enough to write about them except perhaps in passing. I say, "obviously not".

There is also the question of OR and SYNTH, in that the person who added these individuals to the list did so by culling Google hits to make the movement seem larger and more widespread than it really is, and also to promote the political/religious cause and the role of the individuals listed in it. That is a gross abuse of WP for political and religious goals. ZERO evidence has been provided that any of these individuals are part of the ex-gay movement (or even that they exist) except for their own word, which is completely worthless.

The claim that any of these individuals is a integral and important part of the ex-gay movement is an extraordinary claim that has been challenged, and thus requires very very good sourcing. SPSs need not apply, and cataloging pereipheral or extraneous figures in the movement is not what WP is for.

Without reliable secondary sources, any information on these individuals is of zero encyclopedic value, and they should not be mentioned in any WP article. They belong on Clownopedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability only determines whether we have an article on a topic. By expecting that article content must itself be notable, you're at odds with inclusion policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NNC states that "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." WP:LSC states that a common criterion is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" and "This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."

This RFC is in effect a proposal to implement this restriction, and should be amended to state that explicitly. AV3000 (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• comments 1) Since the current header is "People associated with the ex-gay movement," not "people who claim to be ex-gay", some secondary source associating them with the movement would be reasonably expected. 2) Typically, these gay vs. not gay debates completely neglect the reality of bisexuality. Bisexuals, once miscategorized as either 'gay' or 'not gay,' might be able to "recover" back and forth without changing at all. Accepting the ex-gay movement's language, unless also adopted by all three sides to this conflict, precludes NPOV. 3) Moving the ex-gay list to a separate article would be a way to neutrally avoid duplicating the ex-ex-gay list. BitterGrey (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify your point 3? "List of ex-gay people" was just snow deleted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Having only a list of ex-gay or only a list of ex-ex-gay people in the article wouldn't be neutral. It would present one side but not another. However, the list of ex-ex-gay people is already in the article on ex-ex-gay people, and so the list here is a duplicate. One way to be neutral and without duplication is to have both lists in other articles: The list of ex-gay would be moved to a new list article, and the ex-ex-gay list would remain at the the article on ex-ex-gay people. This article would then link to both.BitterGrey (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude non-notable - The relevant guidelines are WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT (the latter applies only to living people). WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that the people must be notable enough to have their own WP article. WP:BLPCAT requires that the person must have self-identified as gay (or ex-gay). WP:BLPCAT also requires that their status as gay or ex-gay be relevant to their notability (in other words, they cannot be in the list if they just happen to be gay or ex-gay). That means that to include a person in this list (and identify them as ex-gay), a lot of hurdles have to be jumped over: (1) person is notable enough for a WP article; and (2) person self-identifies; and (3) status as gay/ex-gay is relevant to notability. Unless all three of those are met, the person should be removed from the list. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the title of the list is actually "People associated with the ex-gay movement", so a fourth criterion would also have to be fulfilled: namely, that the individual listed plays a significant role in the ex-gay movement. It should be noted that people on the list need not be "ex-gay" themselves, just that they play a key role in the movement. In other words, this is not merely a list of ex-gay people, but of individuals of any orientation that are a significant, integral and central part of the ex-gay movement, as confirmed by substantial coverage in reliable third-party secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out: I've amended my comment (see boldface above). The fact remains that those living persons in the list that are identified as ex-gay would be subject to WP:BLPCAT. The fact that the list contains some other persons (that are active in the movement, but not ex-gay themselves) does not obviate the BLPCAT requirement. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to standalone lists; this is not a standalone list. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Trim substantially/Integrate into body: I would reduce the list to notable people are mentioned as associated with the movement in reliable secondary sources independent of the movement. Additionally, those mentions should be more than just passing mentions, not just listings without any other context. There is no need to include a complete roster, lobbyists, activists, or volunteers. In fact, I would think that the bulk of the notable and notably associated people that have done something worthy of mention in a secondary source could be discussed in the body of the article. aprock (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: the appeal to WP:NNC seems a bit dubious given that section lists the specific caveat: "with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people" aprock (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lists can restrict themselves to notable people, and several editors here are supporting that modification, but that's only one option, generally invoked in cases where people tend to add non-notable entries. It's very clear that when such a restriction hasn't been enacted on an article, it doesn't exist. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify your point, could you add a pointer to the specific policy that describes the process for enacting such a restriction, and how that restriction is documented and enforced? aprock (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any formal process. Talk page consensus, or a process such as this RfC when such consensus is disputed, would generally be considered sufficient to enact such a provision. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see clear consensus in this RFC to exclude non-notable people, end if something doesn't change, those people will be removed from the list.--В и к и T 12:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see a clear preference, agreed. I'm still not sure it actually amounts to consensus, because of the way certain policies and guidelines are being referenced inappropriately, LISTPEOPLE being the most obvious. That will be for the closing admin to decide once the discussion has run its course. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Trim substantially per Noleander. I'm not convinced that even all the notable people on this list are "associated with the ex-gay movement", with James O. Mason a good (bad?) example. Huon (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude non-notable, per Noleander. WP:LISTPEOPLE is unequivocal on this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Trim substantially: In order to be included in this list, people must be:
  1. Notable;
  2. associated with the ex-gay movement (and that can be confirmed only through reliable secondary source)--В и к и T 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comments. (1) We should talk about "noteworthiness", I think, rather than "notability", which risks confusion with WP:N. The principle is similar - people of no note should not be included in this type of list. Agree, all the same, that WP:LISTPEOPLE applies. (2) Everything needs a clear and unambiguous source. (3) Sources must indicate that the person affiliates with "ex-gay" as a movement, not just that they claim to have changed their sexual orientation, which someone might claim without necessarily implying a suggestion about what anyone else should do. --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse the bold, but since it appears to have been missed above WP:LISTPEOPLE does not apply since it only governs standalone lists (that is, list articles) and not lists within articles. If someone wants to go try and change that, or point me to a place that duplicates LISTPEOPLE for non-standalone lists, that would be a reasonable argument, but at this point, we have three people citing an inapplicable part of the MOS in this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NLIST.FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The list inside this article was originally a stand-alone list which was deleted following an AfD. That list was then merged into this article. Merger does not automatically cause the requirements applicable to lists to disappear. The spirit and intention of WP:LISTPEOPLE still applies. --Noleander (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A list within an article supplies context in the form of the surrounding article, which places the people appropriately in ways that standalone lists do not. I have no objection to starting a discussion to make LISTPEOPLE apply more broadly, but it is inappropriate to pretend it applies to list content within any article, when it is clearly ensconced in the guideline on standalone lists. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Go with notable only. If a single reliable secondary source goes into significant detail on a subject, that would be OK too, but I think that rule would cause too much arguing, so notable only. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• How to include non-notable people - A couple of editors who want to include non-notable people in the list have cited WP:NNC and rejected WP:LISTPEOPLE. My suggestion is the following: for non-notable persons, we should find some sources that discuss them and then write prose paragraphs in this article (outside the list) that discuss the person, and remove them from the list. Everyone agrees that is acceptable. The whole point of WP:LISTPEOPLE is to ensure that editors don't lazily compile lists of non-notable persons (whether or not the list is stand-alone). Example: Here is a random non-notable person in the list: "Mike Haley is a youth and gender analyst for Focus on the Family who identified as gay for twelve years." I suggest that editors that want to include Mr. H in this article, find some sources and write a proper paragraph on him, and put into the article in the proper context (in which section? why? in what historical era? how is he related to the movement? Is there a reliable source that says he is related to the movement?) We should not let this list be used as a crutch to avoid proper encyclopedic writing. No one is objecting to including Mr. H in this article: but if someone wants him in: do the necessary work. --Noleander (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Include Not entirely understanding the discussion points being argued here, but I'll say that while the sourcing isn't the best, the list is informative and encyclopedic. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Wait, so you have no idea what any of the arguments are and you agree that there are no sources, but you want to include it anyway because it's interesting? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was too tired and lazy to read through the arguments and make a good decision. I'll do so later. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Include - I saw the RfC and decided to weigh in. It's helpful to include a list of influential people who are associated with the movement and from what I can tell, the content is supported by reliable sources. Moreover, that section is balanced by a brief list of individuals who no longer support the movement, per WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It would indeed be helpful to name "influential people who are associated with the movement," but that's a questionable description of what we have even once the material in question is removed. How do we know they are "influential" when they are not covered by reliable, independent sources? How do we know they are "associated with the movement" when all we have on them is that they believe they are not gay? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Roscelese's thoughts. Most of the persons in the list do not have sources asserting that they are associated with the movement. To pick one random example: The only source supporting James O. Mason's is a speech he wrote! That is a primary source and does not demonstrate that he is part of a "movement". What is needed is something like, say, Time magazine writing an article on the movement and naming Mr. Mason. Putting Mason in the list without such a secondary source violates the WP:OR and WP:Synth policies. Someone needs to go through the whole list and prune it. --Noleander (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Again with the "movement" bit. Do you seriously expect that there's an organized set of folks, who transcend individual organizations, who have a secret handshake and a membership card? That's actually a serious question: what sort of "movement" are you looking for? I'm reasonably certain such a creature doesn't exist. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, whoever gave the article its title must have thought there was a "movement". --FormerIP (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article title was changed to add "movement" earlier this year in a discussion that I didn't take part in--see the archives of this page for details. Now that people are trying to use "movement" as an exclusion factor, I'm wondering if we should revisit it. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're seriously questioning whether a "movement" exists, you apparently have read up very little on the topic. Almost all of the the organizations mentioned in the article belong to the umbrella organization Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality. Exodus International was a founding member, although they recently left. Almost all of the organizations mentioned have more or less close ties to NARTH, and they work closely together with each other and Exodus. There aren't many "lone wolf" organizations or individuals, at least of any significance. If any were to arise, they would quickly be assimilated. The movement is HIGHLY incestuous and extraordinarily ecumenical. The principals are almost without exception on a first name basis, and frequently appear together in spite of major religious differences. The after-hours social at an Exodus or Narth conference is probably the only place on Earth where you can find Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Baptists, Mormons, Methodists, Lutherans and Seventh Day Adventists not just sitting peacefully at the same table, but heartily agreeing with each other. Read up, and you'll see the same two or three dozen names appear over and over again. Smaller local organizations are almost always affiliated or associated with PATH, Exodus or both. The non-American organizations were almost all created by their American counterparts, or were created on the American model with the help of their American counterparts. Granted, some organizations have recently been distancing themselves from Exodus and NARTH and have stopped referring to themselves as "ex-gay", but a lot of that is for public consumption, and collaboration remains the rule rather than the exception. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an expert in the movement; I came to this topic a long time ago to fix vandalism, and stayed to try and put an end to competitive POV-pushing. If what you say about the existence of an identifiable movement is true, then that does change my perspective on the "movement" part of the title. Is what you report already documented by RS? If so, it seems an appropriate basis for fundamentally restructuring the article. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I have no objection to a "List of notable ex-gay people". Of course, it would have to conform to BLP and LISTPEOPLE policies. But the list is currently titled "People associated with the ex-gay movement", and that means there is a movement, and we need secondary sources that make the association between the person and the movement ... for an editor to make that association is Original Research, plain and simple. If you want to propose changing the name of the List to something else, go ahead. --Noleander (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Go read the archives. I'll summarize for you: this article is titled "movement" because it was about people and organizations, not the science or politics of ex-gay-ness. You're looking for something that simply doesn't exist, nor was envisioned by the 2-3 people who initiated and executed the move. If you want, we can change it to "ex-gay people and organizations", but that's quite a cumbersome title. Understanding "movement" in the way the move request was phrased is far simpler a solution. Oh, and LISTPEOPLE still doesn't apply to lists within articles, only to standalone lists. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

While LISTPEOPLE may strictly be interpreted to apply only to stand alone lists, I don't think it's out of line to look to that manual of style entry to inform how embedded lists should be handled. I think this is especially true for cases where the embedded list mirrors the content of a stand alone list that was deleted for WP:BLP problems. If you're looking for guidelines for embedded lists, here is the primary guideline from WP:EMBED: Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs. Reviewing WP:EMBED#Appropriate_use_of_lists, it's not clear that the usage of an embedded list here is actually appropriate. In that vein, instead of arguing about whether LISTPEOPLE applies to a an embedded list, it might be more useful to explain why this list is appropriate for embedding. I suggested above to take the preferred method of integrating the people who are central to the topic into the prose of the text. aprock (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although I doubt this would satisfy several of the folks who are arguing that list entries are a WEIGHT issue. I think most embedded lists are maintained as lists simply via inertia. It's pretty clear, looking at the list, that it could reasonably be reconfigured into multiple paragraphs without losing any of the information--it's not like it's a sortable table or anything. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The scope of this article is currently the ex-gay movement, defined in the lead as "people and organizations that seek to get people to refrain from entering or pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship. That the scope of the article was different in the past is now immaterial, and I doubt that there will be any consensus to expand it at the present time. There are good reasons for the fact that the scope has become more limited over time, mostly having to do with the core WP policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS and WP:BLP, as well as the fact that there have been countless attempts to subvert the article for overt political/religious purposes.

The ideas and methods propagated by the ex-gay movement are overwhemingly considered as fringe by mainstream experts. Claims by the movement and its individual proponents are therefore extraordinary claims that require extraordinary sourcing. SPSs are to be used only as a last resort to supplement material presented in reliable third-party secondary sources, and even then with considerable caustion in light of WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE.

The article is not, and should not contain, an indiscriminate list of individuals who claim or are reported to be merely ex-gay. That is beyond the current scope of this article. There is substantial consensus against such a list, as evidenced by the recent deletions of List of ex-gay people. Any attempt to recreate or incorporate the deleted list into the current article would be viewed as a bad-faith attempt to circumvent those deletions.

The article is also not an indiscriminate directory of people who claim to be active in the ex-gay movement. The individuals or organizations listed must be integral, active and significant participants in the movement. Such claims must be substantiated in accordance with WP policies. Criteria for inclusion must conform with the core WP policies listed above, as formulated in WP:IINFO, WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. There is overwhelming consensus that WP:LISTPEOPLE contains useful criteia for inclusion in the list in question. These criteria exclude peripheral or minor participants. An essential criterion for inclusion in the article is significant coverage in reliable third-party secondary sources confirming that the individual or organization in question is indeed a prominent participant in the ex-gay movement, preferably consistent with SPSs, expecially where WP:BLP applies. Organizations and individuals for whom solid sourcing does not exist cannot be included in the article. First-persons claims of being key players in the movement that are presented either in SPSs or otherwise unreliable sources are of course to be rejected as self-promotional and false unless confirmed by reliable third-party secondary sources. Using unconfirmed SPSs or otherwise unreliable sources to determine whether an individual or organization is an a noteworthy participant in the movement would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

The argument that some indivduals or organizations have been ignored by the mainstream press and the academic community is specious and lacks credibility. First of all, it would be a gross abuse of WP to use its articles for RIGHTING GREAT WRONGS. It would also be tantamount to using WP for bad-faith promotional purposes in violation of WP:PROMOTION and WP:ADVOCACY. Second of all, even the most reliable and staid mainstream news sources LOVE controversial topics and individuals, and actively seek them out no matter how obscure they are. See Fred Phelps, who got the attention of Time magazine way back in 1951 when he was just a pimply-faced college student, long, long before he became famous for his picketing. If someone doesn't rate significant coverage in reliable third-party secondary sources, it's a safe bet that they are not a significant particpant in the ex-gay movement, and should not be mentioned in the present article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay. Not a very good essay, I might add. I don't know why you keep invoking LISTPEOPLE ("There is overwhelming consensus that WP:LISTPEOPLE contains useful criteia for inclusion in the list in question"). How many times do you have to be told: It does not apply to this list. How about reading WP:CONLIMITED. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do not understand why he invoked LISTPEOPLE, you may want to reread the part that you quoted. There are references from various editors that the criteria from LISTPEOPLE would serve this article well; that is not an uncommon occurrence in editing discussions, finding some parallel guideline to point to that seems relevant. The fact that LISTSERVE is designed for certain sorts of lists does not mean that its suggestions would not serve other lists well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, I'm afraid, that the policies being invoked are not all that relevant--at least not based on the previous discussions. If you'll look above, you'll see some of the participants arguing that WEIGHT is violated by including NN persons. Then, someone comes along, slaps an inapplicable guideline down, and multiple people jump on it. It's entirely impossible to say whether or not they agree with it, or whether they just adopted it because their real goals appear to be more easily achieved by this line of argumentation. Likewise, arguing that SELFPUB sources from BLP subjects are inadequate on BLP grounds strains my logic: I'm just not seeing how that's a bad idea. I continue to favor retention of the data although with conversion to paragraphs because I do not believe the encyclopedia is served by what I perceive to be CENSORing (whether by design or accident) of unpopular viewpoints. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What encyclopedic purpose does the list have and is this purpose specific to the ex-gay movement? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude The list is trivia, to my mind. To be useful, this article needs to be about ideas, and essential historical facts, if there are any. Names of people plays to a tabloid mentality, and contribute little or nothing of value. Drop it, say I. Not encyclopedic in nature. Furthermore, this issue is becoming a huge time-sink. Put the energy into improving the essential conceptual content of the article. THAT would be genuinely useful. Tom Cloyd (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude or Substantially Trim - A number of good policy arguments have been made above (i.e. WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:BLPCAT). I won't reiterate those, but rather ask what value the proponents of this material would say it has for the reader. Listing off John Q Publics, and Jane Does who happen to belong to some particular movement doesn't seem to offer much "encyclopedic value". It seems unusual and quirky to list so many quasi-notable "followers" of a movement/organization in the topic's main article like this. NickCT (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Ideally, scrap the list and write something in prose that isn't just a linkfarm, but at the least, exclude non-notable. This article isn't meant to be a directory of everyone who has a blog and believes they aren't gay. No other article on a movement discusses that movement by listing primary-sourced or trivially-sourced groups and individuals "associated with" that movement - we cover the activities of these people as reported in reliable secondary sources, because that's what an encyclopedia is for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude or trim to notable only, without any added biographical text. When stand-alone lists get deleted because they don't meet policy it is clearly wrong (even if not technically so) to resurrect them within an entry. Currently we have bios of living people who fail WP:N in this entry and that is unacceptable, especially when some of these bios emphasize the criminal activity of these individuals. If someone is notably part of this movement/group then they should be written into the prose sections of the text.Griswaldo (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude or trim to notable only. I support Roscelese's suggestion of replacing the list with prose content that covers the notable people associated with the movement. That would be much more encyclopedic. I also agree with Griswaldo that it is inappropriate to "resurrect" a list within an article that was deleted for not meeting WP standards.--JayJasper (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude or trim to notable only Which I have begun doing, so far not one reference has supported the inclusion of BLP`s in the list. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Trim to notable only or prose - removing any notable actors in the movement from the article completely would of course be inappropriate, and no list of this sort should include non-notable people. Public awareness (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

• This RFC should be closed. It's opened for almost a month, and there is continuing consensus to exclude non-notable people.--В и к и T 21:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll close tomorrow, when the RfC has been open for 30 days. We should allow the full time period to elapse since discussion is ongoing. Danger (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The most popular position, at this point, is to exclude the list entirely or trim it down to just the notable people. The last six comments have all been to that effect. I think it's best to let this run a little while longer given the recent upsurge in interest and the clear direction that recent comments have gone in. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temporary BLP solution

To protect the privacy of living individuals who are not notable by our standards I have removed their names and biographical information from the list in this entry. Privacy is one of the cornerstones of WP:BLP so please do not revert without a very sound policy based argument here first. Non-notable people who have engaged in notable events that pertain to the subject matter of the entry should be covered, as far as those notable events/activities are concerned in the actual prose content of the entry. Listing them in the manner they were listed is against BLP. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Note - I removed all individuals without Wikipedia entries, whether or not they were written about in the past or present tense as a precautionary measure since no death information is presented on any of them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, The Last Angry Man tried to delete notable people from the list, but that had no basis in policy and went against the above consensus. Public awareness (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you revert content regarding BLP`s sourced to blogs and dead links again will result in a trip to ANI. None of the sources used from the content I removed mention an ex gay movement nor do they mention these people converting gays to straights. Some were misrepresented. Find reliable sources to add them back if your wish. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward on people

Perhaps instead of reverting back and forth (and I apologize for starting it), let's get some discussion going about what this section will look like in the hazy future when it's near done so we can start figuring out what/who to include. Here's what I'm hoping for: a combination of the "organization" and "people" sections into a unified, coherent "history" section (because it doesn't make sense to talk about groups and their members separately) that tells the story of the movement, perhaps chronologically, perhaps by group. To see which people and groups to include, let's get a few long overview articles together. The people that are mentioned in all of them definitely go in; people who aren't mentioned in any ought be discussed further. Those are just my thoughts. Anyone else? Danger (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, we shouldn't have separate sections on people and organizations. These will amount to prose lists, when what we really want is narrative. The section should be "history," and you're right that we need some scholarly articles or books to start hacking out a structure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific consensus that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic

This started off when I read Lionel's statement in "Second guessing self-identification" that "The APA holds the position that sexual orientation identification is changeable." That seems to directly conflict with the final sentence of the introduction of this article. While that sentence is sourced, the source doesn't seem proper. It references a letter from the DoJ, which itself references a book written by a jurist, which presumably references the actual source which would meet WP reliable source standards (I haven't actually seen the book by the jurist so I can only speculate that it references a source that would be a reasonable authority on something like this). The given source almost certainly does not meet reliable source standards on issues of mental being. In comparison, the comparable statement in the "evolution article" is supported by a survey article from a relevant peer-reviewed scientific journal. It seems unlikely to me that the APA would hold a position directly opposite to a legitimate scientific consensus on a subject so close to home for them. I found this http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf which supports Lionel's statement. Ultimately, this makes me think there is probably not actually a scientific consensus on the immutability of sexual orientation. It seems likely to be a pretty charged topic and I haven't edited much or in a long time, so I thought I would throw it to the talk page before I messed with it. Also, the sentence has a typo/grammatical error.Erleichdatpb (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation identification doesn't need to have anything to do with sexual orientation. Anyone can identify any way they want - which will either coincide with their orientation or not. Using the "orientation identification" line needs to be done with care - as it is often used to try to mis-portray that orientation is changeable - as opposed to what it says, which is identification. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying; Are you saying that the article should be changed or not be changed? Neither the line I'm referring to in the article nor the source from the APA use the "identification" qualifier, both just refer to orientation. My issue with it wasn't at all whether or not sexual orientation is changeable. My issue is that the article states that there is a scientific consensus that it is unchangeable and the evidence I can find suggests that there is not. I'm more concerned about what I see as an irresponsible and inaccurate use of the term "scientific consensus" than about the particulars about whether or not sexual orientation is immutable.Erleichdatpb (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, really? I'll take a look at the sources and section you are talking about. There were appropriate cites to support that statement (you'll see it discussed in the talk page history). It's possible such sources were removed again. (hence the "Ugh, really?")

Or were you saying that you know of a scientific body that does not believe it is immutable? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I've got it sorted out. First, that older document you cite (2008) does not disagree in any way. In actuality, it opens with "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern" which seems to agree.
• Next point, the lead doesn't need ANY cites. Per WP:LEAD it's suggested NOT to have cites there. The cites in the lead are only there because people keep trying to rip it apart. You'll find the rest of the cites you are looking for in the body. Hope that explains it all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the APA is one scientific body which is unwilling to say sexual orientation is immutable. The document is from 2008, but it's the most up to date from the APA so I don't think its age is a problem. There's a big gap between saying "homosexuality refers to an enduring pattern" and a scientific consensus that it cannot be changed. To me that definition reads more like they are making it clear that someone who has had a couple of homosexual encounters is not who they are talking about when they talk about homosexuality. It does say that there is no scientific consensus about how a person becomes homosexual and at no point does it state that sexual orientation is unchangeable or immutable.

You're incorrect about WP:LEAD.: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." It basically only says that if you can sometimes skip citing something in the lead if the same citation would just appear again later. It also says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The remainder of the article doesn't again mention a scientific consensus on the changeability of sexual orientation. The statement needs to be well cited somewhere, whether in the body or the lead.

The whole thing relates more to the nature of homosexuality anyway and is better discussed there. The article's coverage of the ex-gay movement wouldn't really be harmed by the removal of that sentence. The article "homosexuality" contains a section "Fluidity of Orientation" which contains quotes from the APA and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health which suggest that sexual orientation changes through peoples' lives, which would directly conflict with the position that it is immutable.

Just to reiterate, it may well be the case that sexual orientation is immutable. There will certainly be many (probably a large majority) people who will state that in their opinion it is unchangeable. Indeed, the APA pamphlet does contain the line "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." None of this constitutes a scientific consensus, which is a very significant term that should not be used casually. Evidence for a scientific consensus will generally include major scientific bodies stating fairly bluntly that there is a scientific consensus on a subject, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

In the absence of good evidence of a scientific consensus the statement should be changed to something more accurate. The quote from the APA I gave above would be a good candidate, or even something along the lines of "early and recent studies suggest..." as in the source quoted in the controversy section (though that source is not so great either; that statement is unfortunately not really explored within that source).Erleichdatpb (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily, many "family" organizations that support conversion therapy disagree with you, such as this one[3] that claims "APA Refuses To Acknowledge Sexual Orientation Can Change". Or look up the 2002 American Psychological Association journal Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training (vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75) where you will find the use of the word "immutable". So, there you have it, (and I can provide more APA or medical sources), the APA themselves use the term immutable. Hope that helps. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, if you wouldn't mind, please read up on those and see if you can find others. After that, I'd love to discuss it with you - as I do think that some changes in wording may be applicable. But, I'd like your thoughts without biasing them with what I read in those. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those are at all inconsistent with what I've been saying. In the first case (which appears to be referencing the same conference that published the source which is already referenced in the article) they only say that they refuse to acknowledge that it is changable. Within the context of science that is not at all the same thing as saying that it is not changeable. It is completely consistent with my impression from the literature that the APA isn't committing one way or the other. That article would have every incentive to say so if the APA said that orientation is unchangeable, since it's a sort of firebrandy piece meant to paint the APA as biased.

The second case does not represent the position of the APA (as in, for example, the pamphlet I mentioned which is authored by the APA). It's an article in a peer-reviewed journal published by the APA. It's common, even standard for mainstream scientific bodies to publish peer-reviewed journals from their field, the contents of which do not represent a consensus by the body. I actually looked the article up using the online library and I get the feeling you didn't read it at all, which isn't really cool given the tone of your response. One of the authors is the same as the author of the study referenced in that article by the anti-gay group to suggest that orientation can be changed. The article uses the term immutable in the context of (direct quote from the paper) "experts on human sexuality do not agree on whether orientation is immutable" The whole thing is actually pretty strongly pro-conversion therapy.

The paper itself does contain references to some sources that suggest that homosexuality is immutable (though they're kind of weak, I'm sure better could be found) such as MASTERS, W. H., & JOHNSON, V. E. (1979). Homosexuality in perspective. Boston: Little, Brown.

I was never arguing that research couldn't be (easily) found suggesting it is immutable though, just that the presence of some reasearch does not constitute a scientific consensus. I think it would constitute original research to try and demonstrate a scientific consensus through a bulk of original research on the topic anyway. Instead it should be established through direct statements by respected, relatively unbiased organizations (such as the APA), which don't seem to exist on this matter.Erleichdatpb (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Slow down please. No tone was intended in my post. I wanted your opinions on the cites that have been trotted out numerous times in the past, without my opinion biasing it. And, if you look at the article now (check the lead, or the history to see my edit), I actually gave away my opinion anyway - which supports yours (if I am interpreting it correctly). Now, I still believe some cites are missing as well - but I am not sure they are relevant to the case at hand. And I also think my change could use some better wording. We spent quite some time working out that section, so I am not sure why it is worded that way. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding you. The current version is accurate and sourced which is great. It does bring me back to my initial issue that the office of the AG is not really a source of much significance on this issue. You could reasonably argue that the way it is written now leaves the reader to make their own informed decision about that though.Erleichdatpb (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it may imply a bias due to its location. There are various studies that indicate such - but those take into account the gamut of sexuality. There is at least one study that contradicts such - but that solely defines sexuality as straight or gay. But, I don't see the published papers that support a consensus as stated by the AG. If it weren't for the fact that it was something entered into a court proceeding by someone who we'd expect to only make claims he can reliably make, I'd actually be for it's removal. I'd love to see any supporting documents that went with his letter (or that were sent by such organizations in support of it).

I do think it belongs somewhere in the article though. Simply because it's a major counterpoint to claims from many in the ex-gay movement. I think this whole darn article needs a massive rework. The problem is, since it is borderline fringe (not supported by any major medical body or various parent churches), I'm not sure how the article isn't going to give more weight to mainstream views that contradict.

As it is, topics specifically related to the groups in question have been removed. For instance, the claim of curing or healing people from being gay have been removed or lobotomized once, after media attention, various groups reworded their "mission statements" and "about" pages & documents. Waybackmachine, OTOH, notes that such, for decades was exactly what they were claiming. The article should reflect that - but as soon as a source link to their own statements and claims becomes dead, someone removes the whole section/claim. I personally think it should say "up until 2007, ThisGroup claimed they were able to treat and heal homosexuals. In 2007, they changed their mission statement to indicate (the stuff currently in place)". Saying solely one or the other creates a biased impression: (a) they are and always have been claiming to be able to cure homosexuality - or (b) they've never claimed such. Neither impression is of course true. I'm at a loss on how to deal with that. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)