Talk:Aesthetic Realism

Revisit Heading Titles

Before we go into more discussion about edits to the headings, are you suggesting that we look at all headings with the words "Aesthetic Realism" in the title which would be these five: 2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 4?

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry and Aesthetic Realism

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 Aesthetic Realism and the arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

LoreMariano (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lore, I'm basically proposing that 2, 3.2, 3.4, and 4 have "Aesthetic Realism" removed. What, if anything, is the mention of the organization telling the reader that is not already implied, known, or stated? (I think 3.3 is an exception since the organization is actually the full name of the foundation, and "The Foundation" is a little ambiguous). I have a feeling this will seem like a type of whitewashing to the more AR-sympathetic editors, since it removes the name of the organization/ideology, but I think it's currently acting as a generic placeholder which doesn't add much detail. As mentioned above, WP:MOSHEAD is clear about this: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)."

So the 'unless clearer' part is where we might have some difference of approach. If a case can be made that it's clearer to refer to the title, then that's reasonable, but it should not be the default. Or else, why not call section 1.1 "Major texts of Aesthetic Realism" and 3.5 " Aesthetic Realism and Victim of the Press" and section 5 "Criticism of Aesthetic Realism and response" and section 8 "External links about Aesthetic Realism". I'm belaboring those examples to prove a point. There's no reason I can discern why some of those are right and others wrong. The ones that lack the title still make sense to me, so unless there's an affirmative reason to mention the title, we should remove it. Ocaasi ^c 13:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ocaasi, thanks for editing. We need more impartial editors for this article. However, please don't intersperse your Talk between others' Talk. It makes it difficult to see the chronology of the discussion, and for that reason we all agreed that we wouldn't do that here. But again, thank you for coming by, and I hope you continue to improve the article, especially as I don't have much time to work on it any more myself. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that discussion, but it's not too hard to do. I know this page can move slowly. I was hoping to make a few drive-by improvements and let the gradual article evolution continue on its way. Lore appears to have been doing a very fair job of things, although I'm sure additional neutral editors would be helpful. Ocaasi ^c 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sections on homosexuality and racism

Regarding the concern about the sections on homosexuality and racism, how about: 'Ending Racism' for the section on racism? For the section on homosexuality, I suggest "Approach to Homosexuality". I think it is neutral and clear. LoreMariano (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you explain why that is more fitting than the opposite: 'Ending homosexuality' and 'Approach to racism'? Is it NPOV to use the active verb (ending) for racism but the general term (approach to) for homosexuality? Or is there a more subtle distinction? Ocaasi ^c 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "Approach to Homosexuality" correctly reflects there are many approaches to homosexuality and Aesthetic Realism is one. I thought "Ending Racism" was better because it's shorter than "Commitment to Oppose Racism," but if the active form ("Ending") is not NPOV, "Commitment to Oppose Racism" is okay with me. Is an active form always NPOV? LoreMariano (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many approaches to homosexuality, but the section is about AR's approach. 'Opposition to homosexuality', and 'Opposition to racism'; I'm not necessarily advocating them, but I'm curious why we would use different words. Do you think 'opposition to homosexuality' is inaccurate or too narrow? I don't have a problem with your two suggestions, I'm just trying to figure out if they could be more specific, and if there's a logic about using them. If not, I'm ok with 'Approach to Homosexuality' and 'Opposition to Racism', although I feel like we're concealing a little something in the first title. Ocaasi ^c 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "There are many approaches to homosexuality, but the section is about AR's approach." Yes...perhaps the title should be even more specific to distinguish it from other approaches, for example: "Approach to Homosexuality as a Philosophic Matter." I don't like the idea of making it that long and I think it's clear from the content that the approach is philosophic.

Re: "Do you think 'opposition to homosexuality' is inaccurate or too narrow?" Yes! Narrow and misleading. Aesthetic Realism is for homosexual persons enjoying full, equal civil rights and that title sounds like it's opposed. LoreMariano (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "Changing homosexuality". Granted, even that is a euphemism, since AR's approach would more accurately be described as a purported "cure" (and that's certainly what the NY Times and others called AR's idea. But still, it's way more specific than something too general (and therefore less useful) like "Homosexuality" or "AR and Homosexuality" or "Approach to Homosexuality". Incidentally, here's the NY Times review of AR's first book on the subject, using the word "cure" twice: This is less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers. There is no reason to believe or disbelieve these ex-homosexuals who claim that Eli Siegel put them on the straight and narrow by showing that homosexuality was unaesthetic and therefore contemptuous of life. By the aesthetic realization that Beauty lies in Opposites, they were cured. Nor is there reason to believe that anyone reading this volume would be moved, intrigued, or piqued enough to try the cure. MichaelBluejay 04:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Philosophic approach to homosexuality" seems most specific to me: that is what distinguishes the approach described in this section from others: it is not religious; it is not medical: it is philosophic.Trouver (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lore, I agree that AR did not 'oppose homosexuals' and we shouldn't imply that.

MBJ, 'Changing homosexuality' is getting closer, although it is actually a confusing use of 'changing', since it refers to the category rather than the person; we'd really mean 'Changing homosexuals', or 'Changing homosexual behavior', or ('Changing homosexuals' worldview so they stop being homosexual').

Trouver, 'philosophic' in this context is just restating that AR is a philosophy, rather than a religion or a medicine. That's already established in the intro, and using the term still doesn't tell us that 'the philosophy' about it was intended to change those practices and feelings.

We can be more specific, as long as it doesn't have negative implications. What about 'Homosexuality therapy', or 'Conversion therapy for homosexuals'. Conversion therapy is a recognized term, and to my knowledge it is neither formalized psychology nor formally religious. I have a feeling the word 'therapy' may be a hang-up, but we could also use a different word, such as 'Conversion philosophy for homosexuals.' If we're going back to 'approach', perhaps 'Approach to homosexual conversion' is more apt. I can see 'conversion' being a hang-up, since AR doesn't posit that people 'change' so much as perceptions, in which case it'd be closer to 'Changing perceptions and behavior among homosexuals', or 'Campaign to change perceptions and behavior among homosexuals'. But that is getting a bit unwieldy. Ocaasi ^c 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism has never really performed an honest self-evaluation of its anti-gay teachings and positions; nevertheless, it is shocking when an Aesthetic Realism advocate unashamedly depicts Aesthetic Realism as ever—let alone always—having promoted gay rights in any meaningful way. Charitably, they're simply repeating a lie they've been told and haven't adequately thought about. At a time when, in New York City (Aesthetic Realism's home base), gay sex acts were illegal, and when firing someone (or refusing to rent an apartment to them) because they were gay was legal and considered perfectly acceptable; when New York City cops were routinely raiding gay bars and rounding up their patrons for arrest, Aesthetic Realism did not take out an ad in the New York Times advocating repeal of sodomy laws, or advocating passage of laws that would protect gays from discrimination in housing and employment, or deploring those police actions: instead they took out an ad advocating Aesthetic Realism as the final solution to the homosexual "question". The fact that Aesthetic Realism now finds it convenient to pay lip service to full civil rights for gay men and women doesn't alter that unfortunate history. Since it's a history they now wish to conceal, it has proven to be exceedingly hard to find a heading that is simultaneously honest and something they'd accept. I think it's especially important to avoid headings that accept their claim that conversions actually occurred. "Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals" or "Claims that Aesthetic Realism changes homosexuals into heterosexuals" would be reasonable. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We're using third-party sources to address that section anyway, and they will be considered the least biased when it comes to what AR was up to in that period. Of course, AR's primary texts and organizational statements will get mention in that section as well. It's totally possible that AR applied their philosophy to Homosexuality and then realized it was simply the wrong target, a mistake, or too costly a public relations position. The notion that Homosexuality could be a result of 'incorrectly viewing the world' is an understandable mistake, and one that would have been consistent with AR's philosophy. In a climate of near-global homophobia and misinformation, I don't view it as an indelible black mark on their history, so much as a misstep and a misapplication of an otherwise well-intentioned notion. Simply put, homosexuality is 'abberant' as in, not the norm, and AR is about not hating the norm, or 'reality'. If one makes the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and natural, then seeing homosexuality as a perceptional deviation just follows 'logically' or 'philosophically'.

Of course that's now considered backwards, insulting, incorrect, and dehumanizing, but AR was no more informed about Homosexuality in that period than many, and the fact that they held on to the notion they could 'help' people shouldn't condemn them today. Then again, they shouldn't try to make it seem like that period was somehow 'not' about changing individual homosexual behavior, cause one way or another that's what it was. It also doesn't mean that you can't help someone without being prejudiced against them. If I try and help someone who's sick, it doesn't mean I don't want sick people to have equal rights. Now homosexuals weren't/aren't sick, but the point is the same--you can believe people deserve rights but still want to change what they do.

What AR says and does now is relevant, because organizations can change their positions and many have. Many churches which used to oppose gay anything now have openly gay congregants preachers. Many people who used to be homophobic now recognize family or friends or themselves as members of that groups, and have changed their attitudes entirely. As long as we don't whitewash the history, we don't have to make it sound like the organization is still promoting something they claim to have left behind (unless we have modern RS which comment on it directly).

I think the proposed titles in my comment before yours are slightly more acceptable without being inaccurate. I'll list all the options here for a discussion/vote! below. Ocaasi ^c 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that Aesthetic Realism's positions on homosexuality have changed: they have not. Aesthetic Realism affirms that they still believe everything Siegel taught about homosexuality, and that they still believe that Aesthetic Realism is the mechanism through which gay people have become straight people. What has changed is only that they are more hesitant to state their beliefs openly, and they no longer use the claim that AR is efficacious in eliminating homosexuality as an inducement to involve people in AR activities. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OL, can you provide me a link, ideally to the AR foundation's website where they maintain that people 'changing' from homosexuality to heterosexuality is still promoted, sought, or accomplished today? Ocaasi ^c 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What to call it?

• Homosexuality
• Approach to homosexuality
• Philosophic approach to homosexuality
• Homosexuality conversion therapy
• Claims of homosexuality conversion
• Attempts at homosexuality conversion
• Homosexuality conversion through the philosophy
• Homosexuality and conversion
• Homosexual conversion
• Homosexuality conversion
• Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals
• Changing homosexuals
• Opposition to homosexuality
• Ending homosexuality
• Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals

add to this list if you have an option, preferably a short, detailed, neutral option

Comments/Vote! (non-binding of course, just a quick poll)

• Homosexuality conversion - I think it's short, on topic, emphasizes that their was an intended 'change' and it uses a recognized word in the context of preference modification. Ocaasi ^c 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the post of Outerlimits: This editor has a right to his opinions, but the phrase "final solution to the homosexual question" with its clear reference to Nazi atrocities is grossly insulting, and has no place on these pages. I changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism and I know that it has always been for justice and full civil rights for all people, including homosexuals. If, for example, men and women have the right to change their sex (and they should have that right), shouldn't there also be the right to change one's sexual preference, if that is what a person wants?

As to the suggestions of Ocassi, I think “homosexuality conversion” comes across as making things too narrow. I think “approach to homosexuality” is neutral and clear. CSaguaro (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was Eli Siegel who formulated (and published) his thoughts on the matter in terms of a homosexual "question" requiring a solution, not I. I agree that his formulation was grossly insulting, and both disrespectful and contemptuous of his fellow humans, but it's history. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the description posted above by Outerlimits is incorrect and insulting. I vote for "Approach to homosexuality" or simply "Homosexuality" or, if agreement cannot be reached, let the existing heading stand.Trouver (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Outerlimits and Trouver, if you're going to make claims of correctness and incorrectness, you'll have to provide a quotation from a primary or secondary source. Otherwise there's no point in slinging accusations and refutations around. This can wait you actually draft the section drafting anyway. Ocaasi ^c 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals" or "Claims that Aesthetic Realism changes homosexuals into heterosexuals" are both inaccurate because the change does exist. The basis for the change is philosophic. I would be for "A Philosophic Approach to Homosexuality" or "The Change from Homosexuality." LoreMariano (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't use 'The Change' because that states as fact what is only a claim from AR and from those individuals. We don't have neutral verification or acceptance of such a change, so it can't be stated as such in the header. What do you see as wrong with Homosexuality conversion? Ocaasi ^c 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

CSaguaro, I agree that 'final solution' was a poor choice of words. Outerlimits, knowing how controversial this subject already is, can you try and leave such turns of phrase out of the discussion?

Lore, you recognize that AR's 'approach' to homosexuality is about 'changing' homosexuals into heterosexuals; thus, omitting any mention of that in the section title would not reflect the distinguishing content of that section. Also, AR's reports that people changed sexual behavior/orientation, or even those individual's claims themselves that such a change happened, have to be attributed to someone; we won't write 'Homosexuals changed' but rather 'according to XYZ, these individuals changed sexual orientation after studying AR'. (The vast majority of mainstream psychologists and scientists believe that people cannot change their sexual orientation, only perhaps their behavior. To use the word 'changed' without attributing the statement with 'said they changed' or 'according to AR members' would be to ascribe a certainty to the transition for which we don't have a neutral judge and about a transition that is presumed by experts to not actually happen). So we can't state it as fact, but we can state that others state it as fact. The policy on this is WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Ocaasi ^c 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you're invaluable here because you're a neutral third party, but to make the best contribution you're going to have to pay a little closer attention. The Aesthetic Realists are trying to whitewash both their history and their current opinions, and it looks like you're falling for it. The question isn't whether AR currently promotes itself as a solution to gayness. They don't, and nobody says they does. But by pretending that's what the issue is, they successfully distract you from the *real* issues. Two of those real issues are, how does AR see homosexuality, and do they regret their earlier efforts to "fix" gays? The answers to both are easy: In their books they described gayness as "unethical" and "a form of selfishness", and they've never, ever said they were wrong, much less offered any kind of apology or expression of regret. They smokescreen by saying, "We're for full civil rights for everyone!" That's true, they believe that gays should have civil rights, but that's not incompatible with their belief that gays have a mental problem that can be fixed by Aesthetic Realism. Ask them to show you any evidence that their opinion on the issue has changed, or where they published their retraction or apology. There's no such animal. Heck, in LoreMariano's response above, she says, "[T]he change does exist. The basic of the change is philosophic..." See? It'll be a cold day in hell before the Aesthetic Realists ever concede that their savior, Eli Siegel, was ever wrong about anything. After all, they believe, in their own words, that he was "The greatest human being ever to live." You don't have to decide which of the competing voices here you should trust, just look at the evidence. As for the poll, the most accurate and descriptive would be "Homosexuality conversion therapy", "Ending homosexuality", and "Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals". MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

MBJ, respectfully, since we haven't drafted the actual section (anew) and all we're talking about is the title, I don't see how my proposal for Homosexuality conversion conceals any of what sources describe, or that I've fallen for anything. I assume that we would cite directly from the H Persuasion, as well as any reviews of the book, as well as Counteringthelies, and the ARfoundation website. We would do all of those things. I don't care if AR wants to whitewash their history, only that we cover what the sources present. I'll leave the truth to the sources.

So back to the title, do you think Homosexuality conversion is appropriate, or would you push for Opposition to homosexuality. I think that's going to be a very tough sell, considering the AR supporters want the general Approach to homosexuality. I'm just interested in the fact that there was a mission to change homosexuals to be in the section header if possible. Ocaasi ^c 06:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "Homosexuality conversion" doesn't conceal anything, it just wasn't in my top three, because it's rather awkward. "Opposition to homosexuality" isn't a good title. AR was way more focused on trying to change gays than on criticizing homosexuality itself. They did some of the latter, sure, but not nearly to the extent that they did the former. And what we're really concerned about here is that AR thought it had a way to "fix" gays and carried and a program to try to do so. They didn't buy big ads in the major newspapers saying, "Homosexuality is wrong," they bought ads in the newspapers saying, "It's a beautiful fact that men and women can change from homosexuality by studying the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel." And yeah, I'm the first to say that AR frequently whitewashes and obfuscates so that we can't take them at their word, but in this case I think we can. Anyway, here are the titles that are acceptable to me, ranked in my order of preference, slightly edited:

• Homosexuality conversion therapy
• Claims of conversion from homosexuality
• Attempts at converting gays to straight
• Homosexuality conversion through the philosophy
• Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals
• Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals
• Changing homosexuals
• Ending homosexuality

Not acceptable:

• Homosexuality (too vague)
• Approach to Homosexuality (too vague)
• Philosophic approach to homosexuality (too vague)
• Homosexuality and conversion (too vague)
• Homosexual conversion (awkward)
• Homosexuality conversion (awkward)
• Opposition to homosexuality (not accurate) MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we found a better choice than either 'changing homosexuals' or 'homosexuality conversion'. We'll have to wait for Lore and Trouver to comment. I'm not ok with you saying, " I'm the first to say that AR frequently whitewashes and obfuscates so that we can't take them at their word, ". Whatever your personal opinion of AR or AR editors is (even, hypothetically, if it's correct), such personal commentary on the subject or on other editors can only make this page worse and are pretty much explicitly prohibited by policy. Focus on content, not contributors. Ocaasi ^c 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments on the first list of titles:

• Homosexuality conversion therapy (not accurate, Aesthetic Realism is not therapy)
• Claims of conversion from homosexuality (not accurate, the change is not a claim)
• Attempts at converting gays to straight (not accurate, the change is not an attempt, it happened)
• Homosexuality conversion through the philosophy ("Conversion" has the connotation of a transformation through religion)
• Attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals (see comment on use of "Attempts" above)
• Claims of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals (see comment on "Claims" above)
• Changing homosexuals (Sounds aimed at a group of people, it's not descriptive of an approach to homosexuality as a subject)
• Ending homosexuality (I like this best out of this group but the change is presently not taught and so it likely shouldn't be active ("Ending")

How about "Change from homosexuality" - without "the" (ratifying a change) and without "claim" (calling into question its authenticity)? Or, in keeping with Ocaasi's comment to me above, "Assertion that men and women changed from homosexuality" which arises naturally out of the section content. The first sentence of that section is: "A controversial aspect of the philosophy concerns the assertion that men and women could change from homosexuality through studying its principles." LoreMariano (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would accept "Change from homosexuality" or "Assertion that men and women changed from homosexuality" or "Assertion that homosexuality changed." Please note that since the goal is to describe the organization "as it sees itself" before opposing views are presented (as they are in the section that follows) other suggested titles are inappropriate. Primary AR sources never use the words "conversion" "therapy" "solution" or "cure" in relation to homosexuality, which is never referred to as an "illness" but as a "preference" or "persuasion." Trouver (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lore, as predicted, the word 'therapy' is an issue. I'd prefer Homosexuality conversion philosophy then. Using the word 'change' is a problem, because it states as fact something which is controversial and must be attributed to those individuals and to AR. It would require a word such as 'claim', 'assertion', or 'attempt'. Also, Homosexuality conversion controversy would be acceptable to me. If you don't care for 'conversion', we could try Homosexuality reorientation philosophy. Even though AR uses some words such as "fair" or "change" does not mean Wikipedia will use those words. We use the most commonly words that fit, unless we are going to attribute the usage or "quote" it directly. Ocaasi ^c 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouver, I'm glad you are in the mix here, but your assertion that we are supposed to primarily describe AR as it sees itself runs afoul of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure: Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. WP:NPOV is quite clear that even headers must abide by NPOV policy. This means we will first summarize the entire subject, starting with the most reliable sources. Then we'll present AR claims, including primary texts and organization statements. Then we'll present counter-claims, if we can find RS for them. We're supposed to describe all points of view neutrally, and in proportion to how they appear in reliable sources. We can state undisputed facts as such, but they must be undisputed in RS, and my personal preference, also uncontroversial. If there's a debate, we describe the debate while attributing points of view. Although we will at some point give AR's point of view 'from the inside', that does not begin in the header. Ocaasi ^c 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I object to 'conversion' for the reason I stated earlier (‘conversion’ has the connotation of a transformation through religion). ‘Reorientation’ is not good because it implies that one can’t really change, only reorient oneself. I'm not trying to be difficult but it has to be accurate.

What about a title which states there was controversy surrounding the assertion that homosexuality could change?, Can everyone live that? i.e.,

• Controversy about the assertion homosexuality changed
• Controversy about philosophic approach to homosexuality
• Controversy about change from homosexuality

LoreMariano (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (arbitrary break)

According to our article on conversion therapy, "The American Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation." It strikes me that conversion philosophy would be philosophy aimed at changing sexual orientation. Homosexuality and claims of changing sexual orientation or Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation might also work. If we can't solve this soon, we should draft the section first, and just use a neutral title in the meantime (Approach to Homosexuality is neutral, although too general IMO). Ocaasi ^c 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You refer to drafting a new section. There was a very lengthy process with various editors (myself included) involved in gathering and reviewing sources, rewriting this article, all the while forging consensus. This took months and months and was completed only a few months ago. I see no reason why it is being suggested that this section be rewritten.

As to titles, I would be for “Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation.” CSaguaro (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK with me.Trouver (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok with me. CSaguaro, I think the draft looks ok, but I wasn't aware it was final. It looks neutral but a bit light on primary sources as well as critical commentary from secondary sources in the period. For now, let's jut focus on the title. Ocaasi ^c 01:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. AR's attempts to change gays was certainly in the form of therapy. AR called it "consultations", but independents called it therapy, like the Village Voice.[1] Here's a transcript of one such session, see if it doesn't fit what a *reasonable person* would consider to be therapy.[2]
2. There is no such thing as a final Wikipedia article. WP is dynamic by definition. I wouldn't call the current version consensus, either, as I never agreed to it. I simply ran out of time to keep objecting. I'm all for a rewrite. MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We're going to have to defer to sources here. Most journalists, doctors, and psychologists would call it therapy, while AR folks just consider it philosophical education, I think to distinguish it from mere psychoanalyzing which is perceived to not be effective (whereas AR is perceived to be uniquely effective?). I think we're going to have to take a look at the section again and then go from there. Let's skip this one for now. Anyone have a problem with the other shortened section headers? If not, they can be added back. Ocaasi ^c

Aesthetic Realism consultations are a philosophic approach to the self that use the literature and art of the world to show what the self is. In consultations, a person learns about the (philosophic) principles of Aesthetic Realism such as, the largest fight in the life of every person is between contempt and respect. This goes for everyone--man, woman, child. The criticism one hears is based on seeing a self aesthetically, as trying to put opposites together. For instance, in consultations, I was asked questions about the division I had made between what I showed outwardly and what I thought to myself. I didn't know how to be an accurate critic of the men I knew and I also thought I could easily fool them by my appearance. I was given the assignment to read Jane Eyre as a means of learning what it means to have good will for a man instead of narrowly wanting to conquer as a means of making myself falsely important.

I'm not so sure most journalists, doctors and psychologists would call Aesthetic Realism consultations therapy, I think it's inexact to say that. Aesthetic Realism Consultants are not therapists. At any rate, this isn't the place to discuss the philosophy but I can assure you it is nothing like therapy! I wanted to make the difference clear because I studied at length in consultations myself.

re: titles. I'm a bit confused about where we stand. Is this the current proposed list:

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 The arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Commitment to end racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

If these are correct, I'm okay with them. LoreMariano (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with those, certainly for now. Two questions/suggestions: I think 'Mission to end racism' or 'Campaign to end racism' might be slightly better, since they focus on the actions rather than just the disposition. Also, why is Racism not part of the history section but Homosexuality is? (Has AR stopped its Homosexual counseling?) Ocaasi ^c 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look, are 'The arts' and 'Aesthetic Realism Foundation' historical? Or should they be moved out to separate sections? Ocaasi ^c 22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation" still needs work, as it implies that AR changes sexual orientation (in one direction only, of course). That's a decidedly fringe view and shouldn't be put in a way that implies Wikipedia endorses AR's assertion. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, look at the last sentence in the section on homosexuality. Presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality were discontinued in 1990.

Re: section on racism -- although there is a lot of current work done on ending racism, there is no official mission or campaign to end racism by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation that I am aware of. The purpose of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is described in the info box in the article: "Aesthetic Realism, founded in 1941 by poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902-78), is a philosophy dedicated to the understanding of, and greater respect for, people, art, and reality."

The section on the arts and ARF both contain a lot of historical content so my opinion is that they're good where they are.

I don't see how "Homosexuality and changing sexual orientation" is an endorsement, it's a subject. However, for simplicity's sake, I suggest we change it back to 'homosexuality' and change the racism section back to 'opposition to prejudice and racism'. LoreMariano (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this latest questioning, how about the more neutral title: “Approach to Homosexuality” or simply “Homosexuality”?

Also, let’s not forget at one time the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was considered a fringe idea. CSaguaro (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lore, I think Opposition to prejudice and racism is good, and better than 'commitment' or 'mission' as you've described them. 'Opposition to racism' is better still, if you think it's inclusive enough.

CSaguaro, Approach to Homosexuality is ok, but it does omit the critical aspect of the approach, the claim that AR can change sexual orientation to heterosexuality, and the fact that this was controversial at the time. How about Homosexuality change controversy, which would include both the positive assertions of changes, as well as the negative backlash it received.

I have no idea what your reference to geocentrism suggests--perhaps that one day we will view AR as the Galileo's of sexual orientation? You may believe so, but we'd need a whole ream of sources to get past the current scientific consensus; Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball anyway, so whatever 'could' happen in the future is of no issue here and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Ocaasi ^c 00:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'Opposition to racism' is a better heading. LoreMariano (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for Homosexuality Change Controversy. I feel it has a congested quality and doesn't have a natural sound. Also, I question the word controversy—I know it’s in the first sentence of the section. But as part of the title it seems too intense; it over-emphasizes the sense of conflict. I thought the word “reaction” might be more accurate and as an alternative suggest Philosophic Approach to Homosexuality and Reaction to It or Philosophic Approach to Changing Homosexuality and Reaction to It. I think they capture what is in the section and are neutral. CSaguaro (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think tone matters, but not more than accuracy and weight. That section--and the history of AR--is both about the philosophic approach and the controversy it created. Both. In fact, the controversy was so terrible that AR decided to stop promoting the philosophic approach in that area. How could an accurate title leave that out? If AR wants this part of their organization's history to be minimized (not out of shame but because the effect was counter to their broader goals), is that a reason Wikipedia can consider in its phrasing? The title you've suggested has three major concessions to AR: 1) philosophic approach; 2) changing homosexuality; and 3) reaction. A title proposed by someone not as sympathetic would just be Homosexuality conversion controversy and be done with it. Let's look at the differences.

1) AR is a philosophy by self-definition, so anything it does will be philosophic, at least in approach. The choice of this word is to distinguish it from 'therapy' which is mainstream and perceived by AR to be ineffective. Conversion is a word borrowed from the therapeutic and religious contexts, but it has deep roots in attempts at changing sexual orientation/attraction/behavior.

2) It is AR's claim that individuals changed their sexual orientation. This claim is not verified by independent sources. Therefore any time we use the phrase, we have to attribute the claim to AR, or the specific individuals/group of individuals who made the claim. I believe it's accurate to say that mainstream science/psychology did not accept AR's claims in this area as truthful--so much so that AR embarked on calling all of the media willfully neglectful and itself a victim of the press for suppressing those claims. But if the entire media (and scientific establishment) didn't accept and report on those claims, then Wikipedia, as a neutral body which weighs reliable sources (our definition WP:RS not AR's), could not possibly use the word as a plain fact; it must be attributed.

3) Reaction is a general word. Why would we be general when the reaction was almost solely negativity, skepticism, and bad press. AR does not deny this, I believe, else why would Victim of the Press have followed?

I hope looking at those 3 issues gives you a better idea why the title you suggested is not appropriate for this section. I'm not sure what the best one is yet, but you can be sure it's different. Now one possibility is to break down the issue into subsections, with the main header reading 'Homosexuality' and subheaders 'Philosophic approach', 'Change claims', and 'Controversy'. Or we could cram those into a single header as Philosophic approach to homosexuality, claims of 'change', and controversy. Ocaasi ^c 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not so sure most journalists, doctors and psychologists would call Aesthetic Realism consultations therapy." We've been over this before. There are lots of references on the Sources page showing that they call it that very thing.

I still stand by my rec's for the H section, with my top pick being "Homosexuality conversion therapy", which is short, descriptive, accurate, and neutral. "Approach to homosexuality" is insufficient because it doesn't describe the attempts to change gays.

"I think Opposition to prejudice and racism is good." I'm afraid I have to object, because AR's goal in trumpeting its supposed answer to racism isn't to end racism so much as it is to promote AR itself. This is just like what they did with the gay issue, though at least this time they picked a more palatable target. I know I can't prove this and so I'm not suggesting that we write the article from that perspective, but neither do we write it in AR's favor either, as though their efforts were completely pure. I would suggest "Answer to racism" with that phrase in quotes, showing that we're quoting the way they describe it themselves (it's the title of their book), so that WP isn't taking a stand one way or the other on whether their efforts really genuine or not.

I think Ocaasi has a good handle on the issues surrounding the wording of the headings. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with "Answer to Racism". LoreMariano (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess as long as it's in quotes it's okay. If we want to go the particular 'phrase with quotes' route, that's one solution. It avoids debating the pros and cons of paraphrases, though it also suggest we don't have very good independent secondary sources which used their own term either.

Just an idea, then. Would "The H Persuasion" be a sufficient title for the Homosexuality section, or does that overly obscure the topic?

MBJ, if we can avoid speculating on the real motives of AR, for good or bad, it would help. Without sources, it's irrelevant and only makes it harder to work on this. Ocaasi ^c 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think adopting AR's idiosyncratic terminology is an option; no one else in the world uses the very coy phrase "H Persuasion" and no one not already involved in AR would recognize what it means. The press coverage of AR's ex-gay publicity push was much more honest and plain-spoken: The headline for a 1989 news article about <name redacted for BLP concerns> read: "Homosexuals can be cured, says ex-gay: Preacher goes straight and weds former lesbian" and begins "Homosexuals can be cured of their limp-wristed lifestyle by changing their outlook about themselves and the world, says a married preacher who was gay." AR was cautious about using the term "cure", but the press was not, and we're writing this article for the general public, not AR. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OL, the only reason to use that was as the literal title of the book, not to adopt the terminology in Wikipedia's voice. The header would be formatted as a book title (quotes, or italics, I forget which is MOS). If it doesn't work that's fine. BTW, have you included all such sources as the 1989 article on the sources/criticism page? Ocaasi ^c 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But the section isn't about the book, it's about AR's ex-gay advertising campaign/movement. I'm not certain which page you mean by "sources/criticism page", but no, it's not included because it's not the source for anything in the article, and if anything, it's completely laudatory, not critical. if you want to view it, it appeared in the Weekly World News September 12, 1989, p. 41, and can be found on Google books here - Outerlimits (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, though it was possible the book's title could stand in for the philosophy and controversy had it been more commonly named. The sources page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/sources , it's just a sub-page of this talk page, and it's linked in the header templates at the top. Weekly World News, though, is not RS. Ocaasi ^c 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the book's title as the title for the section would be Wikipedia adopting AR's viewpoint...not consistent with NPOV. And, yes, I suppose status as a RS might be pertinent if anyone had proposed using as a source for the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If a source isn't good enough for the article, then it's probably not good enough to enlighten our discussion on the talk page either. The same issues of reliability are there, and I wouldn't trust the quotes from WWN, regardless of where they are. Although they ran some human interest features, they did not have a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' even in those articles, mixed in with stories of alien babies and the like. Ocaasi ^c 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The WWN is a perfectly good source when quoted to demonstrate what the press labeled AR's gay conversion efforts. I didn't quote it for the truth of the matter stated, but rather as an example of press coverage. It falls well within Wikipedia's policy when used for that purpose. - Outerlimits (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure about that, seriously. I very well understand using sources as evidence of their own views/behavior (or their own groups' views/behavior), but the problem is that WWN is not representative member of the press. The only thing it is RS for is how semi-fictional tabloids covered AR, which is a category of almost no use at all. If you're not sure about this, we can bring it up at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN to get some other opinions. That said, I think it's pretty academic and unlikely to effect the discussion here either way. Ocaasi ^c 23:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (Arbitrary break #2)

Ocaasi, mentioning my feelings on AR's motivations was necessary in order to explain why I objected to the proposed heading. As for the gay change section header, I agree with OL, "H Persuasion" is too obtuse, and the section is about their gay change program, not the book. About the book, the full title is: "The H Persuasion: How Persons Have Permanently Changed from Homosexuality Through the Study of Aesthetic Realism With Eli Siegel". I'd agree to a section heading of "Change" from homosexuality. The quotes serve double-duty: We're quoting AR's actual word, while distancing ourselves from asserting that it really happened. MichaelBluejay (talk)

I know how you feel about AR. I think it's clear what your position is, so I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it here. Ideally there is a completely non-personal reason why a change is or is not appropriate. If we need to resort to presumptions or personal experience, we haven't found it. I agree that H Persuasion is not detailed enough (and the full title is long!). "Change" from homosexuality is okay, although I find the quotes less than ideal. (Even where they are appropriate, they can cast doubt in the readers mind. And even if that doubt is appropriate, we don't want to make it seem like it's Wikipedia's doubt rather than sources', although quotes may be our best option). So...

1. "Change" from homosexuality
2. Homosexuality conversion therapy
3. Homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)
4. Approach to homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)
5. Homosexuality "change"
6. Homosexuality "change" and controversy
7. Homosexuality conversion controversy

I'm more or less okay with any of these. Rather than point out the ones you couldn't accept, can you list the ones you could, and we'll go from there. Ocaasi ^c 06:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"change" used in that way is again fairly idiosyncratic AR diction rather than the way a normal person speaks. And using quotation marks to indicate doubt is discouraged; the proper way to go is to attribute doubted claims, thus:

1. Claims of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism or
2. Claims that homosexuals converted to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism

I think the second is probably better. Outerlimits (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with these, though they're a bit wordy and don't mention controversy. Also, is 'through AR' implied? Ocaasi ^c 18:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not for these titles. Concerning the words conversion and change: the word conversion has a clear religious connotation--changing or accepting a set of beliefs or opinions. The men who say they were once homosexual and are now heterosexual did not convert. Through education they learned about themselves and the world, their way of seeing people and things changed so deeply that how their bodies responded also changed. It is not conversion. It is change. And the word is not idiosyncratic. I think it's simple and clear and describes what these men (myself included) say happened. In an attempt to have neutrality in the matter of change—could there be “assertion of change”? I modified one of the titles on Ocaasi's list:

Approach to Homosexuality, Assertion of Change, and Controversy CSaguaro (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem not labeling the controversy as such in a heading. As for the contention that "conversion" carries only a religious meaning, it's simply not true; in fact many ex-gay groups who label themselves "conversion therapy" are explicitly non-religious. Using the word "change" isn't a problem, it just has to be precisely used. I would have no particular problem with Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism, though it's slightly goofier than using the perfectly accurate "converted", or better yet, Claims that homosexuals became heterosexual through Aesthetic Realism. Perhaps we should simply adopt the language used by the Boston Globe (see source page) — something like "Emphasis on changing homosexuals into heterosexuals". - Outerlimits (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OL is right that conversion is absolutely the word used by mainstream sources to describe this. Now it's possible AR views their version of ending homosexual behavior/attraction/identity as somehow fundamentally different than a Christian conversion therapist. CSaguaro, I think religious scholars would describe--a change so deep that it happens in the core of your understanding and worldview--as exactly what a conversion means (or should mean). Conversion is not a trivial switching of teams or allegiances; in spirit it is supposed to be exactly as you described it for any religious individual, or any individual going through major changes. "Assertion of change" is an alright phrase, and Assertion is less weasel-y than "Claim". So:

1. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
2. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
3. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
4. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
5. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
6. Emphasis on changing homosexuals into heterosexuals

These all look okay, but are on the wordy side for headers. Short is better if possible. I'm starting to lean towards a more general header (Approach to homosexuality) with sub-headers (Assertion of change, and Controversy). Ocaasi ^c 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, in the same breath that you say you say you think you understand my feelings, you show that you don't. My objections aren't "personal", and it's offensive for you to trivialize them as such. Anyway, in your earlier list, I would agree to #'s 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (and not 3 & 4). In your most recent list, the only one I could agree to is #3, since the remainder are way too verbose. But I could agree to a modified #6 if it were "Efforts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals" (or even better, "Efforts to change gays to straight"). MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't know how you feel about AR, but I know what you've written about AR. There's a great deal of information which makes clear your position on what they do and why. I don't think it particularly helps us to bring up that point of view on this page, since we're going to rely on sources in the end anyway. What I meant by personal was not so much about your position but rather your comments on others editors' motivations. If it appears someone suggested something which is not a good heading, for example, I prefer to just say why that's not a good heading, or that it might obscure topic x, rather than suggest that they are trying to obscure topic x. This is often just semantics, but this is a Wiki, and words are all we have. I'm trying to keep the editing content-centric and efficient, in the interest of getting good results and avoiding the battleground between group supporters and critics.

Thanks for finding some consensus on titles. If we just pare down the list that people are okay with, maybe the intersection will be a viable one (rather than an empty set). I'm curious why you don't care for #3 and #4. Although the main title is general, the bolded sub-sections would be very specific. Here's the ever expanding but converging list:

1. Homosexuality
2. Homosexuality "change"
3. Approach to homosexuality
4. "Change" from homosexuality
5. Efforts to change gays to straight
6. Homosexuality conversion therapy
7. Homosexuality conversion controversy
8. Homosexuality, "change", and controversy
9. Efforts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals
10. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
11. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals
12. Emphasis on changing homosexuals into heterosexuals
13. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
14. Claims that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
15. Claims of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism
16. Claims that homosexuals converted to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism
17. Assertion that homosexuals changed to heterosexuals through Aesthetic Realism
18. Homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)
19. Approach to homosexuality (subheader: "Change" claims: subheader: Controversy)

There are objections to using: "conversion", "change" if not in quotes, "therapy", and "emphasis". "Assertion" is preferred to "claim". My vote is still for Homosexuality, "change" and controversy but I'm okay with any here. All we need is ONE that all can work with. If this was a clever game (and I was in control of it), I'd say everyone should pick numbers they're ok with, and if there wasn't a group match I'd just write it myself. Or everyone should unbold the ones they don't like and we'll see what's left. Or... we can ask Will Beback to pick? Maybe everyone could just write out the one's they're ok below with and we'll see if there's an overlap. Ocaasi ^c 05:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Before I say which titles I'm for, some preliminary comments.

The word "change". As has been said Wikipedia should neither endorse nor discredit what is being said. I think the quotes around change definitely present that change negatively, as suspect, fake, not creditable. A title with the word change not in quotes or the phrase "assertion of change" (without any quotes) would be preferable.

The word "claim" as stated above is POV and not acceptable.

Here are the titles I would be for, using your numbering:

1. Homosexuality

3. Approach to Homosexuality

8. Homosexuality, Change, Controversy

11. Assertion that Homosexuality Changed (I cut the "to Heterosexuality")

13. Approach to Homosexuality, assertion of change, controversy

Also, I propose the following:

Homosexuality, Change, Reaction

Approach to Homosexuality, assertion of change, reaction

Homosexuality: Change and Controversy CSaguaro (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I could live with any except 1, 3, 18, and 19, which are not descriptive enough. MichaelBluejay (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (break 3)

Ok, that's significant overlap so far. Are there objections to (new numbers and small variations):

1. Homosexuality, change, and controversy
2. Homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
3. Homosexuality, claim of change, and controversy
4. Approach to homosexuality, change, and controversy
5. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
6. Approach to homosexuality, claim of change, and controversy

For my taste, these are inclusive, reasonably short, and neutral. CSaguaro, "Reaction" doesn't work since it's generic, just like "backlash" would be too descriptive the other direction. I think "controversy" is most on target. Note that the above capitalizations are correct and only the first letter of the title is capitalized. Homosexuality is not a proper noun, so it would not be capitalized unless it's the first word of the title. Ocaasi ^c 07:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They're short, but nearly perfectly uninformative. Much better to have a heading that actually has meaning, such as Claims that homosexuals converted to heterosexuality through Aesthetic Realism; Claims that homosexuality is caused by contempt; Claims that Aesthetic Realism eliminates homosexuality in those who study it; Claims that Aesthetic Realism caused homosexuals to become heterosexuals. The section isn't about "homosexuality" in general, or "change" in general, or "controversy" in general, it's about Siegel's specific teachings about the nature of homosexuality and the claimed effect of Aesthetic Realism in making homosexuals heterosexual, and the controversy over that claim specifically. - Outerlimits (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC). - Outerlimits (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the titles on Ocaasi’s list are the best we have. I would be for #1,2,4 or 5. The titles suggested by Outerlimits are too long and especially with the weasel word “claim” would not work. CSaguaro (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, I added 'and' after the 2nd comma; that was a grammatical oversight. OL, I wouldn't mind some more detail if we were going to use a header/sub-header approach. But MBJ seemed to want the points all in the main heading, and if that's the case, I'm wary of using excessively long titles that approach a POV. We still have the text itself to do the job of explaining details, and if it's not getting across what you're suggesting, we have a bigger issue. These are more detailed, are they better? Ocaasi ^c 01:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Approach to homosexuality, assertions of changed sexual orientation, and controversy
2. Approach to homosexuality, claims of changed sexual orientation, and controversy
3. View of homosexuality, assertions of changed sexual orientation, and controversy
4. View of homosexuality, claims of changed sexual orientation, and controversy

They are certainly better. They can also be changed from three clauses to two without loss of precision:

1. Controversial approach to homosexuality, and assertions of changed sexual orientation
2. Controversial approach to homosexuality, and claims of changed sexual orientation
3. Controversial views on homosexuality, and assertions of changed sexual orientation
4. Controversial views on homosexuality, and claims of changed sexual orientation or even
5. Controversial claims about homosexuals and changing sexual orientation

- Outerlimits (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that, but I have a feeling AR friends will be. Fairly so, if it suggests that controversy was inherent to the approach rather than something that followed it. (I've made similar objections to calling astrology 'a pseudoscientific practice' rather than 'a practice, which is pseudoscientific'). OL, if you're okay with 'assertions' then we should scrub them from the list to pare down further. Ocaasi ^c 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm exceptionally sympathetic to Outerlimits' desire to have enough description in the heading, because insufficient detail isn't just euphemistic, it also does a disservice to the reader by not properly informing them what a section is about before they read it. On the other hand, the proposed headings are really unwieldy. That's why I like "claim" much better than "assertion", simply because it's shorter. I don't feel any semantic difference between them. I also much prefer "controversy" to "controversial views on homosexuality", because what views on homosexuality *aren't* controversial, even contemporary, mainstream ones? What was more controversial in this case wasn't AR's "views" but rather its efforts to change people, to the point that they felt they had to close up shop on that one, for whatever reason. Anyway, I think we can both use far fewer words as well as be exceptionally clear and descriptive. My suggestions are:

1. Efforts to change gays to straight
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation
3. Claims that gays can be changed to straight
4. Claims that sexual orientation can be changed
5. Assertions that gays can be changed to straight
6. Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed
7. "Cure" for homosexuality

I know that the AR people will object to the word "cure", but that's what independents called it, like the New York Times. I would certainly put it in quotes, and the article would have to make clear that AR never used that term itself. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well this might be in the wrong direction, since previously both you and CSag seemed on the same page, but it's only more options, so maybe they'll be useful. I prefer 2, 4, and 6 of that group. On a factual question, did AR only seek to counsel only male homosexuals or also females? #7 is interesting, but only seems fair if we did it in a balanced way: Homosexuality "change", homosexuality "cure" or Homosexuality change, homosexuality cure, which is a little newsy. Just a reminder that Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy was approaching broader acceptance (3/6) (CSag, Oca, MBJ/Lore, OL, Trouver). Ocaasi ^c 08:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, AR counseled both gay men and lesbians, marrying them off to each other, but their big publicity campaign centered squarely on gay men. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do think these later titles are in the wrong direction. The words claim and cure are not neutral. I don't think the word assertion should be made plural. Although one man who said he changed is named, the section is not a listing of the different men who said they changed. This section is presenting (through RS) Aesthetic Realism’s approach to homosexuality as a philosophic matter related to the questions all people have. It is about the fact that through studying Aesthetic Realism men said that how they saw the world changed and homosexuality changed as well. That is the one assertion that is made. And the section is also about the controversy that this made for. I am still in favor of Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy. CSaguaro (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable regarding assertion/assertions. Also, it's not only historical, since the assertion is still made, just not publicly I believe (that might be a contradiction though). 'Claim' is touchy, although it's only different from assertion in connotation. So, closest I can see is:

1. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change, and controversy
2. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of changing sexual orientation, and controversy
3. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of changing gays to straight, and controversy
4. Approach to homosexuality, assertion of changing to heterosexuality, and controversy

Are these in some variation workable? Ocaasi ^c 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be for # 1 and 4. CSaguaro (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the difficulty is that #1 doesn't say what is changed, or to what. #4 is better, but it still isn't clear about the assertion. The assertion is that men (also a few women) changed from homosexuals to heterosexuals by studying AR. Surely we can find room in the heading to explicitly state the assertion being made. It's the principal claim that sets AR apart from mainstream opinion on the subject, and is far more important than the fact that it engendered controversy, or represents an "approach" to homosexuality: Assertion that homosexuals became heterosexual by studying Aesthetic Realism gets the job done. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to be as agreeable as possible but I don't want that to be at the expense of a good article. The most recent suggestions are just terrible. They're too vague, as Outerlimits said, as well as too long. I don't like OL's suggestion either because it's too long and awkward. The more I look at the recent 7 I suggested, the more I think they're the only ones that meet the goal of having a descriptive, understandable, accurate, and non-awkward heading. Ocaasi, regarding changing lesbians, I've invited you before to have a look at my website to see original source documents, articles, etc., which would better inform you about the topics under discussion. For example, in the page on AR's gay cure, I reprinted the big ad they bought in the NY Times which the supposedly changed signed, and after the list of men, there's a list of women headed by "We have changed from lesbianism". And as I note in the text, one of the signers is my grandmother. She was also a "consultant" who counseled others on how to "change". MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If length is such an issue, shorter alternatives are: Claim that homosexuals became heterosexual through Aesthetic Realism or Claim that Aesthetic Realism make homosexuals heterosexual - Outerlimits (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality, and controversy
• Homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism, and controversy
• Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality, and controversy
• Approach to homosexuality, assertion of change to heterosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism, and controversy

I'm inclined to try and pick from these and call it a day. Or we can go back to Homosexuality and Aesthetic Realism (the original freakin title)

The above 4 are neutral and comprehensive. I think the role of AR is sufficiently implied or stated. This section is not just about the claims or the controversy or the philosophy. It's really all 3, starting with how AR views homosexuality as an outgrowth of contempt, then the series of testimonies and advocacy, then the controversy/backlash leading to VOTP and eventual (public) retraction. Although it's very important to those who look negatively at this period in AR's history that the "claim it cured gays" is emphasized, I don't think this is the overarching title. It's may be the key point--the thesis, so to speak--but it's not the title or general subject.

MBJ, The reason I asked about women is because homosexual and gay can have different gender connotations and they've also changed over time. I think your website does not meet WP:SPS requirements, so I would prefer any links to articles or images be posted on the sources subpages here, just so I know which ones are actually going to be usable in this article. Are any of the images you mention public domain or with a copyright status we could upload here? Would they meet RS? (Or a fair use exemption, is also an option, but that's getting ahead of ourselves). Ocaasi ^c 12:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to keep repeating suggestions that have been rejected. None of your most recent seem to address the fact that your reading of the section is not universally agreed to; I think you're quite wrong that AR's ex-gay claims aren't paramount; without them no one would have even heard about AR's "approach", much less care about it, and there would have been no "controversy". A neutral formulation would admit that, instead of trying to bury amid "approach" and "controversy". Better alternatives are: Claim that homosexuals became heterosexual through Aesthetic Realism or Claim that Aesthetic Realism make homosexuals heterosexual, the latter of which is 58 characters compared to the shortest of your four, which is 70 characters long. - Outerlimits (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OL, those suggestions had partial agreement between MBJ and CSag so it was a good place to try and build from. That said, I disagree with your characterization of my viewpoint. I acknowledge that [claims] "gays changed" is the thesis, the key point. But headings are more general than theses, and in my opinion the proper heading is one of the above four I listed. A heading should cover all of the topical areas not just the most prominent one. If we want to highlight a specific aspect, then i think we need to use subheaders. Ocaasi ^c 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you continue to miss my points. My repeated invitations for you to have a look at the material on my site (which includes a wealth of primary sources) are not a suggestion for you to cite those sources, but rather a way for you to learn more about the topics under discussion. Since it hasn't been clear, let me be more blunt: You're editing a topic you don't seem to know a whole lot about, and that's apparent when you ask basic questions like the one you recently did. My site and sources could answer a lot of your questions, as well as put the issues into perspective. And of course I know that the terms "homosexual" and "gay" can have different gender connotations.

I think OL's suggestions are still too awkward, and I still think the ones I suggested are clear and away the best ones.

CSaguaro, please don't censor other people's Talk. The policy you cited is for editing ARTICLES, not Talk pages. The policy doesn't say you can censor other people's Talk. MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I agree with you that your suggestions

1. Efforts to change gays to straight
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation
3. Claims that gays can be changed to straight
4. Claims that sexual orientation can be changed
5. Assertions that gays can be changed to straight
6. Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed

are much to be preferred over the others, because they accurately focus on the crux of the matter. I would avoid "cure", though only in an effort to be accommodating. I think I like Claims that gays can be changed to straight best- Outerlimits (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OL, my criticism of them is that they focus too much, not effectively arching over the content of the section. They're not wrong, I just find them less comprehensive. MBJ, you suggest other people would see things your way if they knew what you know. Perhaps they know. Perhaps they disagree. Perhaps they want to maintain neutrality to facilitate editing. Regardless, my approach is based on the sources that will bear on this article. I see the source subpages amply detailed. I think the titles I suggested work, but perhaps my top pick would be better as. Approach to homosexuality, assertion people changed to heterosexuality, and controversy. Ocaasi ^c 6:26 am, Today (UTC−4)

Ocaasi, as you note in your back-channel communications with LoreMariano, you've been unable to achieve consensus that your desired heading is to be preferred. You might want to consider that "comprehensive" and "short" are directly in conflict and consider compromising on the former in order to achieve the latter. Article sections should be comprehensive, article subheadings should be short. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if' back-channel' was suggesting an attempt to short-cut this discussion, but I was pretty clear that we should make the uncontroversial changes and check back here about homosexuality and racism. Comprehensive and short are in tension but I find that it is possible to achieve both, just not with consensus. My personal preference is none of the suggestions that have been discussed. I would do:

==Homosexuality==
===Philosophic approach===
===Claims gays changed sexual orientation===
===Controversy===
...and I'm pretty sure one way or another that offends everyone. Anyway, let's make the uncontroversial changes to the headers (everything except homosexuality/racism) and then throw around the titles if need be. Ocaasi ^c 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Back-channel" is simply an allusion to the fact that you are coordinating your editing with LoreMariano on (at least) your respective talk pages, rather than on the talk page of the article involved, so that the complete record of conversations won't be found here, where one following the editing of the article would normally expect it to be. Simply a statement of fact, rather than an implication. Of course, our purpose is to find an acceptable consensus, not a set of proposed titles that pleases you but fails to obtain consensus. Simply restating what pleases you isn't really a step forward. As previously stated, "Homosexuality" won't do, as the section is about AR's views on homosexuality, not homosexuality per se; the "Claims" section fails to attribute the claim, suggesting that someone unaffiliated with AR had made the claim that AR eliminates gayness, rather than AR itself making that claim and "Controversy" as a separate heading seems both superfluous and misleading: it's not as though the "philosophic approach" (that is, the AR dogma that all homosexuality arises from contempt) were uncontroversial, or that the ex-gay claims were uncontroversial. In short, it seems your headings, while short, are vague and uninformative and would benefit from being clear statements rather than vague descriptions. - Outerlimits (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion (Arbitrary break #4)

In keeping with our purpose stated above by Outerlimits "to find an acceptable consensus," I'm okay with this title suggested by Michaelbluejay: Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed. I would prefer Assertion that sexual orientation changed since the Aesthetic Realism Foundation no longer gives consultations on this subject, but I can live with it as stated by Michaelbluejay and (I think) approved by Outerlimits ("much...preferred over the others, because [it] accurately focus[es] on the crux of the matter." LoreMariano (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working towards consensus, Lore. In the meantime, can we do something about the other section headings, that are very simple changes. Any objections to updating the non-homosexuality titles as discussed above? Ocaasi ^c 20:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not down with changing "can be changed" to simply "changed", for a couple of reasons. First, the fact that AR no longer counsels gays about changing is beside the point. The point is that AR believes that sexual orientation is *changeable*. That's what's meant by "can be changed". In any event, AR believes that homosexuality is caused by contempt, and that studying AR can help one purge their contempt, so any gay person who has sufficiently mastered Aesthetic Realism will cease to be gay without any gay-specific instruction, according to the AR doctrine. In fact, I believe one of the "changed" described his experience exactly that way (probably Sheldon Kranz; I don't have my copy of The H Persuasion handy). But again, the point is that AR believes that homosexuality is amenable to change, which is what the heading is trying to communicate. As far as the other headings, Ocaasi, can you present again exactly what you're suggesting? I think using the Scientology article as an example would be a good idea, tweaking it as necessary. MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So, Assertion that sexual orientation changed? I find it a big ambiguous for an uninformed reader, but if that's the closest we can agree on we should use it. Ocaasi ^c 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Assertion that sexual orientation changed is what Sheldon Kranz and others asserted. I think it describes accurately the content of the section. I think "can be changed" sounds a little like a promotion or brochure advertising that "change is possible." LoreMariano (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Mainstream opinion is that sexual orientation is not amenable to change. AR believes otherwise. That's why their position is controversial. "Can be changed" describes this properly. "Changed", by itself, does not. MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed those two up. This is part of the problem, though, with having a pointed, descriptive heading; it doesn't leave room for the breadth of the subject or nuance over time. The main topic here is Homosexuality--the subtopics are "Homosexuality is caused by contempt"--"Study of AR changed sexual orientation"--Controversy--Retreat from public claims. Ocaasi ^c 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think they are ideal I would be for either of the titles Assertion that homosexuality changed or Assertion that homosexuality can be changed. CSaguaro (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this looks very close to consensus. Assertion(s) that homosexuality/sexual orientation [can be] changed. If that's all we're discussing then this should be fairly easy to wrap up. Could OL and Trouver make a comment? Ocaasi ^c 03:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the most accurate title of those suggested above is: Assertion that homosexuality changed Second choice: Assertion that sexual orientation changed. Trouver (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, Yes, let's go forward with the simple changes--

1. Philosophy

1.1 Major texts

2. Poetry and Aesthetic Realism

3. History

3.1 Lectures and classes by Eli Siegel

3.2 Aesthetic Realism and the The arts

3.3 Aesthetic Realism Foundation

3.4 [TBD]

3.5 Victim of the Press

4. Aesthetic Realism and the opposition to prejudice and Ending racism

5. Criticism and response

6. Footnotes

7. References

8. External Links

Thinking about the difference between Assertions that sexual orientation can be changed and Assertion that sexual orientation changed, I think the main difference is that the first implies it's possible ("can be" changed) but it leaves a question in the reader's mind as to whether it ever did. The second seems to imply that it is possible because it has occurred, "sexual orientation changed" and therefore it is possible that "it can change." At any rate, the second title is stating that it is an assertion, it's not stated as a fact, so I think it's NPOV and it does reflect the content of the section. LoreMariano (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm adding the not controversial changes. Everything but homosexuality.
2. Assertion...changed implicitly covers MBJ's apt distinction that mainstream experts do not think homosexuality can be changed, because we have contextualized this as an assertion, and therefore attributed the POV per WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not wrong, but simply not necessary to add 'can be changed' since 'assertion' implies that since it was stated, the statement included its possibility. If I 'assert I can fly' it means I also 'assert i am capable of flying'. They are synonymous in that regard. We should also add a note in the section giving the mainstream opinion on sexual conversion therapy per WP:FRINGE, as well as noting the historical response from mainstream experts and reviewers to AR's assertions was dismissal and skepticism. Ocaasi ^c 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you suggest a note be added to the homosexuality section. The section on homosexuality and the following section “Victim of the press” use various sources to present the position of Aesthetic Realism as well as the response from media, psychiatric establishment and gay advocacy groups. I don't think it is needed. CSaguaro (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Having participated in editing this article in the past I have been following the current discussion with interest. We took great care with sources during the many months of editing to be sure that all positions were adequately represented and they are already present in both the homosexuality and victim of the press sections. It should be noted that the historical response to the change from homosexuality was mixed with not only skepticism and dismissal but also with positive response as well such as the John Lewis article in the New York Daily News. In my opinion that ground is well covered from all sides and needs no further footnoting. It should also be noted that Aesthetic Realism's constant position has been that it is not conversion therapy and shouldn't be confused as such. It is philosophic education about how a person sees the whole of reality and it posits that as a person's way of seeing the world changes many things in their life will change simply as a natural consequence of that, sexual orientation being one of them. It doesn't set out to change a person's sexuality but rather to have a person "like the world on an honest, aesthetic basis." The challenge in editing this article is to avoid pigeonholing Aesthetic Realism into categories that aren't really accurately descriptive of it.Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

CS, I think the current version does do a decent job of presenting the response of media/psychiatric/gay groups. I meant the commentary more generally, not as a specific proposal.

Cyberpathfinder, what AR presents and how others view it are two different things. The establishment viewed AR's approach as another form of conversion therapy. AR never described it that way. Those are two separate things. We describe them both per NPOV, attributing the respective opinions, not endorsing either. Ocaasi ^c 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think to say that the establishment viewed AR as conversion therapy is too broad a statement. The historical record shows that the establishment's reaction was quite varied with AR's position viewed as everything from a breakthrough to an intriguing theory to overly simplistic. The main and most intense drive to label Aesthetic Realism as "conversion therapy" (and thereby discredit it) came from the "gay mainstream" and various gay reporters such as Kae Longscope who wrote for the Boston Globe. I think the article as it stands does a respectable job of dealing with the nuances of the establishment's multi-layered response to Aesthetic Realism in relation to homosexuality. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as revisionist history. Outside of one article in the NY Daily News (by a reporter who apparently took the Aesthetic Realists' at their word that the "change" program really worked), what other positive coverage is there? And where in the mainstream media did they say that Aesthetic Realism was *not* conversion therapy? For that matter, how exactly would AR's program *not* qualify as conversion therapy? There are copious references on the sources page about AR's consultations specifically referred to as therapy. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the distinction is between time periods and points of view. At the time, and in their view, AR was performing neither conversion nor therapy, it was just consultations to correct philosophical outlooks in a fundamental way. In the 70's, mainstream psychologists considered that therapy and likely conversion therapy, since it was widely accepted practice to fix the 'mental disorder' that was homosexuality. But the term conversion therapy came into popular usage during the 80's with the rise of the Christian Evangelical movement and its response to the advances in gay rights into the 90's. Not for nothing, change and conversion are synonyms, and "therapy" is a very broad word which can encompass almost any deliberate interpersonal attempt at life-improvement. I believe the sources we have viewed AR's campaign as one of conversion therapy, or at least in that context.

The question of how we deal with terminology in this article is pretty straightforward. 1) We describe the uncontested facts as neutrally as possible. 2) We give AR's view of what they were doing 'at the time' (60's-80's). 3) We give the mainstream view of what they were doing 'at the time'. 4) Then we do that again for the 90's-00's, presenting whatever new terminology either side used.

MBJ, could you point to specific sources that are on the subpage--RS which we can use--that are not incorporated into that section?

Cyber, the point of view you're suggesting belongs in a separate paragraph, the one which deals with AR's characterization of what was going on. We don't write from an insider's point of view, no matter what it is or if it's 'correct'. We write from no-one's opinion and describe the various sides. That's what NPOV is in practice. Of course, it's better if this can be integrated into a coherent narrative, but if it can't, we just go: uncontested facts, side A, side B, repeat.

WP:FRINGE has some insight here, as does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Fringe suggests that non-mainstream points of view receive attention in proportion to the coverage they got in independent reliable sources, unless the non-mainstream point of view is being described from the insider's POV specifically. It's fair to say that in the panoply of psychological experienced, conversion therapy is Fringe to begin with, and AR's philosophical consultation approach is even more Fringe. Fringe doesn't mean wrong it just means not mainstream. Also, that doesn't mean we describe AR's actions as something they were not--we can still choose terms carefully and detail the contexts in which they were used--but it does mean we only present AR's view of their own conduct when we are specifically describing it. Otherwise, independent sources should be the dominant ones, or at least they should have a separate section.

Cyber, I'm not sure that it was only 'gay advocacy' groups who characterized AR's actions in they way you've suggested. You'll have to do a more thorough comparison of the sources, and keep any original opinion out of the weighing of those groups. Same to you MBJ, though having seen the sources subpage I think there is something to your suggestion--not the "conversion therapy" part, since that is mainly semantic, but the fact that the mainstream did view it as therapy, with the intent of "changing" (= converting) sexual orientation, and did not recognize AR's approach as meaningfully different in that regard. Ocaasi ^c 06:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, thank you for your continued work on this article. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking me regarding sources. This section covers AR being referred to as "therapy", "conversion therapy", and "counseling", but I'm sure you saw that so I'm not sure what you're after. I did just clean up the Sources page a bit so it's better organized and easier to find stuff. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant, are there any sources on the sub-page which are not currently used in the article, that support your proposed changes. Ocaasi ^c 09:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What proposed changes are you talking about? That the section heading for the homosexuality section should be something like "Assertion that sexual orientation can be changed"? MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant mainstream/academic/gay sources which address homosexuality that are on the sub-page but not in the section. It wasn't really related to the title. Ocaasi ^c 01:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't checked, but why are you asking about this now when we're working only on the heading now? When it's time to work on the section, I'll be offering a new rewrite of the H section from scratch. MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, do you still want to work on this article? MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

rewriting history: the attempts of Aesthetic Realists to whitewash their organization's history of ex-gay therapy

On February 21, User:LoreMariano removed a long-standing category without consensus (the category had been recently reworded from "Changing sexuality " to "Sexual orientation change efforts"). This was reverted fairly quickly; since then Nathan43 has been edit warring in an effort to reinstate the removal. The category is clearly appropriate, as demonstrated even in this AR-friendly rewritten article, and this effort by members/followers/etc. of AR to whitewash their acknowledged history need to stop. - Outerlimits (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)