Talk:Conversion therapy: Difference between revisions

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"pseudoscience" claims

article claims conversion therapy is "pseudoscience". the links/cites are all either dead or lack any basic acceptability in wikipedia supposed standards of laying such a claim. Even more, on a scientific note, pretty much everything in psychology is "pseudoscience" when held up to the the full rigors of scientific scrutiny, depending on how broad a semantic brush one wishes to stroke.68.117.88.143 (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the result of WP:LINKROT. I and other editors have previously verified the sources. When I have a chance, I will see if I can find new links directly to the sources, or new sources.- MrX 12:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the links that is claimed to be source material for the "psuedo science" claim suggests over 10% efficacy in conversion therapy. If something works for 1 out of 10 people, in no way shape or form is it "psuedoscience", regardless of whatever hyperbolic nonsense one author chooses to espouse. Given the highly pejorative denotation of a "psuedoscience" this is not even remotely encyclopedic beginning to a wiki article. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even need to check to see which source you're talking about to see that your premise is a misunderstanding of what pseudoscience is. Whether something is scientific or pseudoscientific in no way depends on some measure of efficacy. (See pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The term is so horribly vague and open to interpretation in wikipedia version of pseudoscience almost everything on earth lacking a mathematical proof is "pseudoscience". And like I said, the entirety of psychology, almost the entirety anyway, would fall under the same category. So when I go around edited ever psychology related wikipage calling it pseudoscience, you are going to be there to back me up, right? 68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No it's not (see pseudoscience). We use reliable sources and are not allowed to conduct original research. So, no, editing pseudoscience into every psychology related article would be not be advisable.- MrX 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

unfortunately, tt's already OR by misusage of pseudoscience. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's properly sourced. There is no problem there.--McSly (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

umm, no, it's not properly sourced. Hence why i made this section in the first place. /boggle 68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, read the link in my original response. WP:LINKROT←click this

WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.- MrX 23:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Such a grand and pejorative statement as the supposed pseudoscience of anything, in order to be included in wikipedia, should be EASILY found in a vast amount of peer reviewed scientific journals. Short of that, it doesn't get included. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I easily found a dozen books saying that conversion therapy is pseudoscience. One scholarly article is "Healing Homosexuals: A Psychologist's Journey Through the Ex-Gay Movement and the Pseudo-Science of Reparative Therapy", published in 2002 in Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy. There are so many more that I do not care to waste my time listing them all. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about clinical science here. I don't care about one homosexual's heavily biased interpretation of reality. i want to see an actual clinical science journal describing conversion therapy as "pseudoscience". I'm sure there are some modalties of treatment could fall under the broader category of pseudoscience. However, I don't think the entirety of that therapy method should be tarred with a singular brush. I've read enough of my own to know it's no more pseudoscience than pretty much every aspect of psychology dealing with human behavior and counseling thereof. So, journal, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.88.143 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You were going well, there, until you lost your rag and revealed your ignorance of scientific psychology results. It's a young science - good in parts. (The moderation here is so severe that you will have to click on my number ID to find the true article history).--80.229.223.248 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Only controversial in recent years

The lede starts out by saying that conversion therepy is controversial and has been critisized in the united states and other countries (which is true). however i think it should say something like "in modern times" or "in the last x decades" because it wasn't critisized heavily until recently, and if we're going to open with the fact that it is critisized we should mention that. Thank you! EDIT: i forgot, i can change it myself! so i did 139.62.30.188 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Transgendered part

"to convince a transgender person to give up their true gender and identify with their sex assigned at birth."

I propose a change to:

"to convince a transgender person to give up their true gender identity and identify with their sex assigned at birth."

Because I think that this might be more precise, as gender identity specifically refers to "A person's sense of self as a member of a particular gender." (Wikitionary) 173.180.66.26 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the addition of that sentence. And this, this, this and this are the changes to it so far. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This has almost certainly surfaced due to the Leelah Alcorn case. It should've been covered years ago, but one of the primary contributors of this article is a close colleague of a pro-conversion therapy academic, so… Sceptre ^(talk) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization

I wonder if someone more familiar with a lot of the nuance in this article than me might consider reorganizing some sections to make it clearer which parts refer to conversion therapy for gender identity versus conversion therapy for sexual orientation. For example, the APA's 2009 strong condemnation of conversion therapy focused on sexual orientation. It strikes me that a complexity of this article is that many of the people doing the therapy view these 2 sides of conversion therapy as one and the same. But the people speaking out against it on the other hand and researching it have to study the effects of this "treatment" on 2 different populations. By lumping both types together in the whole article in becomes difficult to read since 2 related but not identical concepts are presented together. Lyo (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried reorganizing, but a user (with a history of editwars and attacks on anonymous contributions) keeps reverting my attempts to improve the article. I will start a dispute resolution requests. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is controversial topic. I suggest that you propose edits here and seek consensus. A lot of discussion and compromise has taken place here to arrive at a balanced view of the subject. Your contributions are welcome, but please don't try to force them into the article when other editors are objecting.- MrX 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I added references, as requested. I then asked to contribute instead of reverting. I asked to correct my spelling and/or grammar. I asked to only remove the disputed part. But there was still nothing on the talkpage. The person reverting was not objecting, because that person did not write anything on the talkpage. I have seen no arguments, thats why it was not clear which part was disputed. How can one reorganize when people keep attacking anonymous IPs?143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reorganization is a mess, and I reverted it as the mess that it is. And if you keep reverting to that version, you will be WP:Blocked for WP:Edit warring. Before I reverted you, you were repeatedly reverted by Binksternet, and MrX. Enough reverting from you! One more revert from you, and I will report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or at WP:ANI. The same applies if you are this editor. Like I stated when I reverted you, the lead is supposed to summarize the article...per WP:Lead. While the lead needs to be cut, it should not be cut as drastically as you cut it. It should adequately summarize the content of the article, including any prominent controversies. And the fact that conversion therapy is overwhelmingly about converting non-heterosexual identities to a heterosexual identity should be especially clear in the lead.

On a side note: If you followed me to this article from the Age disparity in sexual relationships article after our discussion, then take note that I do not respond kindly to WP:Stalking unless it is someone I want WP:Stalking me, and that I will report WP:Stalking at WP:ANI. If you start showing up at articles that I edit, do keep that in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative medicine?

Should we tell the reader that conversion therapy is considered alternative medicine? The recent changes to the article introduced that idea in the lead section but it is not supported in the article body. Certainly conversion therapy is discussed in psychiatry as "alternative psychiatry" but I don't think that's synonymous with the larger term "alternative medicine".

Equating conversion therapy with alternative medicine can go two ways: people who like alternative medicine for its demonstrable benefit to patients will protest that conversion therapy does not fall under this label. People who think alternative medicine is "medicine that doesn't work" will appreciate the comparison to conversion therapy.

I searched the literature and did not find any kind of main theme of conversion therapy as "alternative medicine". Instead, I found that conversion therapy is considered alternative psychiatry, as in psychiatry that does not work. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the part you dispute. You should have removed that part yourself, instead of starting an editwar! 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is not founded on evidence gathered using the scientific method. This fact should be in the lead section. I don't see why there should be an exception for this article. But perhaps there is a way to avoid the word alternative medicine? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources that call conversion therapy alternative medicine? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

By definition (I begin), alternative medicine (I continue), has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)