Talk:Aesthetic Realism

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)

Mass reverting

LoreMariano recently reverted all my edits to this article without explanation. The user left a bizarre message on my talk page claiming that all edits to the article need to be discussed first. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. No one needs prior discussion to make changes, particularly not where minor and uncontroversial edits are concerned. Many of my changes concerned basic matters of grammar and punctuation, and it was highly inappropriate to revert them. I consider such reverts to be little better than vandalism. It was equally inappropriate, or perhaps still more inappropriate, to restore unsourced, obviously controversial material such as the following: "Some men who began to study to change from homosexuality discontinued their study. Others, who at one time stated they had changed, later decided to live a gay lifestyle. Still others indicate that the change from homosexuality they first experienced in the 1970s and 80s is authentic and continues to the present day." Perhaps LoreMariano is not aware of basic policies such as WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV? That restored text seems to violate both of them. I ask other editors to take a look at this situation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the unfortunate facts about this article is that Siegel's followers will tolerate no changes in their preferred text. They monitor the article and revert changes on sight; if anyone wants to continue to butt their head against their ownership of the article they call in reinforcements from among their group of fellow Aesthetic Realists. Your changes were certainly well considered, but they won't like them for several reasons. [1] If you refer to the founder as "Siegel" instead of "Eli Siegel", as our manual of style requires, they will feel you are giving their leader insufficient respect, and feel it is their duty to resist that change. [2] the followers of Aesthetic Realism speak in a peculiar, stylized, stilted and formulaic idiom. (This is where phrases like "Other former students say it is nothing of the kind", or the labeling of their efforts to change sexual orientation as a "change from homosexuality", and the ritualistic quoting of tangentially related writings of Siegel come from.) If you don't state things in their terms, they will feel *you* are not giving Aesthetic Realism sufficient "respect", and will marshal their forces to resist you. (I suppose we should count ourselves lucky they don't require us to refer to homosexuality as the "H persuasion!") And lastly, [3] if you make changes that correctly label the beliefs of Siegel and his merry troupe as their beliefs rather than eternal truths, as our neutral point of view policy requires, they will put out the word that their fellow "students" must come here at once to ensure that you do not succeed. Sadly, I feel trying to make this article accurate and fair is probably a fool's errand. What you see is the best we could do. Expect to be told that your understanding of NPOV is hopelessly flawed; true neutrality consists of worshiping every word spoken by Siegel, and denigrating anyone who does not. Actual NPOV policy would dictate that Siegel's assertion that change of sexual preferences was possible (a WP:FRINGE point of view) be counterbalanced by a firm statement of the mainstream belief that such change is not possible. (Something like "A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be harmful," from our ex-gay article.) But you can count on the cohort of Aesthetic Realists who watch this article with religious fervor to rally their forces to prevent such facts from being included here. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Then report them on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. WP:Battle is not allowed. Cavann (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it to be highly disturbing that unsourced text claiming that some people have successfully changed their sexual orientation through Aesthetic Realism can be restored to an article. I'm going to see what can be done about this (and the borderline-vandalism reverting of corrections to basic grammar), including maybe taking this to the neutral point of view noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey folks, Cavann was correct that any unsourced content can be removed--that's very much what verifiability requires. It's often courteous to provide other editors an opportunity to provide such a source, but it's not required: the burden is on those who want to include the content to provide a reliable source.
• On the subject of discussing things first, there is no policy that requires it. However, if substantial changes are reverted, best practice is to then bring the discussion up on the talk page. I would recommend you try to follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle, which is essentially a one-revert approach; it's especially useful for controversial articles.
• I don't see why minor changes to spellling, grammar, and/or punctutation would require extensive discussion first, provided they don't meaningfully change the content. On that point, encyclopedic writing should use common, clear terminology and avoid jargon where possible.
• There has been extensive discussion over the years at this article. It would probably be helpful to look at it. That said, prior consensus doesn't mean changes can't be made. Articles change over time to best reflect the provided sources.
• I'd encourage all participants to remember that nobody owns a Wikipedia article and all issues are up for discussion insofar as sources support suggestions. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor changes to spellling, grammar, and/or punctuation do not require prior discussion at all. That is not the way things are supposed to work here. The fact is, much of the grammar of this article, and some of the punctuation, was simply wrong. And now it is wrong once again, because LoreMariano decided to revert all my changes. Not only is much of this article very poorly written (as Outerlimits notes above), some of it is so bad that it's almost incomprehensible. For example, this in the lead: "And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: 'All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.'" The first part of that is not only obviously ungrammatical, but also virtually gibberish. I corrected it to something comprehensible; LoreMariano un-corrected it. What possible justification could there be for such behavior? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is my personal speculation, but as a philosohphy predicated on aesthetics, I believe folks affiliated with Aesthetic Realism may have a particular attatchment to certain phrasings. It may not always be apparent to them that some common internal language does not fit in an encyclopedic tone or sound natural compared to common encycopedic writing. Please try not to get too frustrated, there's more accomplished with patience and good faith and concrete explanations. I suggest trying your changes again, but perhaps in smaller chunks. That's usually an easy way back into dialogue. Then if there are specific issues they can be discussed individually.Undoubtedly this takes longer and is less satisfying; controversial articles however often work best when modified in small steps. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with that approach, of course, is that it's what led to the current unfortunate state of the article, which is at least partly a result of your previous efforts here. What's needed is an approach that will lead to better results. Please don't encourage bad behavior by creating a false equivalence of involved parties, or by apologizing for those who are the cause of the problem; there's only one recent editor who's reverted salubrious edits while not explaining those reversions, all while simultaneously encouraging everyone but herself to use the talk page. There's no reason for the Aesthetic Realist folk to think that their peculiar patois is appropriate for an article in the English Wikipedia; rather than telling other editors to permit it, we should explain to those who insert it that it's gibberish and unacceptable here. Unfortunately, cajoling and reasoning requires that opposing parties act in good faith rather than conflict of interest, and be interested in improving the article, capable of discerning its shortcomings, and willing to accept NPOV as the basis of changes. A review of the article's recent history demonstrates that it's only one party that wants unreferenced, non-neutral material inserted. I think it's rather shameful to suggest that FreeKnowledgeCreator work in "smaller chunks": he's already done so; it's LoreMariano that made the large mass reversion. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, can you see the position I'm in? I could try, as you say, to make the same changes again, but if I do, I'm immediately open to the charge of edit warring. If I correct grammar and punctuation, and another editor then decides that they prefer incorrect grammar and punctuation and reverts me, should I then edit war to restore correct English, or should I instead respect Wikipedia's policy against edit warring, and let the article remain ungrammatical? If I correct an incomprehensible passage, and someone decides they prefer the incomprehensible version and reverts me, should I edit war over that too? Saying that I should try to make changes in "smaller chunks" sounds too much like giving LoreMariano an excuse for what she did. She could have considered my changes on a change-by-change basis. She chose not to. There's really no excuse for that. Let it be noted that LoreMariano, in spite of insisting that changes must be discussed on talk, has not even tried to participate in this discussion. That puts the assumption of good faith under strain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Outerlimits, I've consistently tried to mediate fairly here, and respecting both sides does mean they're equally right. There is a battleground mentality at this article that cuts both ways. Also, explaining someone's motivations is not apologizing for them. And recommending smaller changes is standard practice at any controversial article. I recognize that it's frustrating, but that's the nature of controversial topics--they take more time and discussion. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ocaasi, I understand you think you are mediating fairly, and I am trying to point out to you respectfully that I disagree. Treating people who are behaving differently as if they were behaving identically is not a solution, it's a problem. Recommending smaller changes immediately after an editor has made incremental changes in very small edits isn't appropriate, it's insulting. It also suggests you're giving recommendations without actually examining or understanding what's going on. And the issue is not that your advice generates frustration, it's that it has been shown to generate a very bad article. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to minor edits but would like to review them first here on the talk page. Changes that seem minor sometimes change the meaning of a sentence. Of course I'm all for improving grammar.

An example of a "minor" edit that changes the meaning of the sentence is this:

Original: "Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, but other former students say it is nothing of the kind."

Modified: "Some former students have said that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, but others deny this."

It is not clear who the "others" are in the modified version. If you want to change it to:

"...but other former students deny this", I would have no objection to that.

I assure everyone I am in good faith. If I don't respond right away it's because I'm at work and cannot be on Wikipedia or I'm in transit. LoreMariano (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lore, this is a good example of where changes might inadvertently be unclear. However, it still is a little overbroad to revert all such primarily grammatical fixes in one swoop. If there are specific issues you have you could raise them on the talk page, or change back specific pieces instead. Wholesale reverts generally make other editors feel like they are being outright rejected. So, I'd try to zero in on specifics that you don't like next time and permit others to make changes in good faith. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

LoreMariano, you have been asked to explain your reversion of all my edits to the article. In response, you seize upon one small change that you didn't like, and use that as a justification for reverting everything. You are, for what it is worth, quite wrong in suggesting that it is unclear who the "others" are in the modified version of the article. It is perfectly clear from the context that the "others" are the other former students of Aesthetic Realism. If you can't see this, then I'm afraid you simply don't understand how the English language works. Using the expression "former students" twice in one sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence look foolish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, you seem to be suggesting that I have a battleground mentality. Why do you suggest that, exactly? You say I should make small changes. I can only reply that that is exactly what I did. As you can see from the edit history of the article, I made a large number of small changes to the article, changes that editors who want to improve it could have considered on a case by case basis. You have given me absolutely no indication of what I could have done differently, or what I should do in future instead. Let me tell you what I'm considering doing. As LoreMariano has made an objection to only one of the changes I made, I'm going to restore my changes. All of them, with the exception of the single detail that she objected to. Her objection was wrong and based on a misunderstanding of English, but nevertheless, I will use her suggested version of that passage in future edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator. To my understanding you've done nothing but edit in good faith. This article has a complex history and I was making a more general statement about the dynamics over many years. Sorry for the inadvertent accusation. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was giving that instance only as an example of why we need to look at each change on a case-by-case basis. I will start making the list today at lunch time. LoreMariano (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just counted the edits of mine that you reverted. There were 38 of them, many of them very minor. Did you actually expect me to discuss each of those 38 edits with you on the talk page before making them? Not only is there no policy that requires that, it's not a reasonable thing to expect. To insist on it looks more like a tactic of obstruction than anything else. As for your list, I will take a look at it and respond shortly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-reversions

I'd like to comment on something that I have been silent about up till now. Going through the revision history of the article, I noticed that LoreMariano reverted her own edit back and forth no less than six times. See this edit, and the five edits after it. I can understand someone making an edit, and then in good faith changing their mind and reverting it, but to revert oneself six times over just seems very strange. Frankly, it looks more like the behavior of someone who is playing with an article than that of someone who is trying to contribute in good faith. In plain language, it's vandalism. LoreMariano, could you please stop doing that, and promise not to do it in future? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it looks moronic. Unfortunately, I was in a location where I kept losing my connection. I inadvertently "undid" my own reverts. Apologies to everyone for causing confusion about it. LoreMariano (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. I withdraw the accusation of vandalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Revisions

Here is a beginning list of edits by FreeKnowledgeCreator for discussion. I bolded changed text (added or deleted) in order to easily identify the changes. LoreMariano (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

From the Victim of the Press section

July 8 edit - citation needed

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1978, ads were placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” They were signed by 50 men and women. With few exceptions, the press in general either ignored or dismissed the assertion of persons who said they changed.

LM Comment: I suggest footnotes 78 and 79 as the citation.

Can we change the citations to the new template format or is it still necessary to quote them? Trouver (talk)

July 8 edit to discontinued presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality

From:

In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”

To:
In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding the issue, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”

LM: Not sure describing homosexuality as an "issue" is better. It sounds inflammatory to me. Presentations and consultations show that the material of our lives can be a subject for study--for example, I learned that how I saw my mother was a "subject" that could be described, increasingly understood, and studied in the same the way I studied a subject in college. I think "this matter" is important to show it is a subject of study.

Does the change improve this sentence? Trouver (talk)

Edits to Lede

July 8 First Edit to Lede

From:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, according to Siegel, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. And third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

To:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

LM: Not sure why "a" philosophy would be better. I agree that the other changes are an improvement.

July 8 Second Edit to Lede (correct confused sentence)

From:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, it is the study of how what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

To:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. It is based on three core principles. First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, the study of what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

LM comment: I agree this change makes the sentence clearer.

This change is good. Greetings everyone! Trouver (talk)

Reply

LoreMariano objects to changes I made to the following passage:

'In 1990 the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued its presentations and consultations on the subject of homosexuality, explaining that it did not want to be involved in the atmosphere of anger surrounding this matter, and saying that “we do not want this matter, which is certainly not fundamental to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism truly is: education of the largest, most cultural kind.”'

What can I say except that the passage was very badly written? LoreMariano doesn't seem to understand the problem. She apparently thinks that adding "the subject" before "homosexuality" adds something useful or meaningful to the sentence. It does not. It is simply unnecessary verbiage. Her rambling comments about how she learned to see her mother in Aesthetic Realism are not to the point. LoreMariano also wishes to retain "this matter", and opposes the change to "this issue." Perhaps that is because "this matter" was the terminology that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation chose to employ? It is, of course, perfectly proper to use such language in direct quotations from statements made by the Foundation, but the page is meant to be written like an encyclopedia article, not like a press release from the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. The objection that "issue" is inflammatory is foolish; it's a perfectly appropriate word to use. Finally, using the expression "this matter" twice in one sentence is awkward and extremely bad writing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

More to follow. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

LoreMariano objects to my change of "the philosophy" to "a philosophy" in the lead. If she cannot explain whether "the" or "a" is better, then what was the point of reverting the change? If you look at properly written articles about philosophies or movements, you'll see that "a" is the term used. See Objectivism (Ayn Rand), for example. "A" specifies what Aesthetic Realism is more clearly and more simply than "the". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, everyone, let's refrain from combative language. This article is the product of several Users and Wikipedia editors, and their work should be respected. The statement in quotes expresses the view of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, and all Users were instructed to present their view before presenting opposing views, which I believe has been done throughout this article. The statement is clear and it should not be changed. As to "a philosophy" I think that change is acceptable. Many changes made by FreeKnowledge do improve the article, so thank you for these. On the other hand, I question some of word changes, particularly in the section dealing with the change from homosexuality, and as this concerns living persons, we should be careful that changes are really improvements, not simply differences in style.Trouver (talk)

1. I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator's edits, which are NPOV, make the article read better, and are non-controversial, except to certain cult members.
2. OuterLimits is spot on: The Aesthetic Realists have learned enough about the Wikipedia process and terminology to try to exploit and abuse it. According to them, you can't make a change unless you get consensus, and you'll never get consensus because they won't give it to you. Ta-da, de-facto ownership of the article.
3. The article is horrible. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up. We've amassed tons of sources that would aid in doing so. (See the links at the top of this page.) The Scientology article could be used as an example, especially as that article has received a lot of attention.
4. Speaking of Scientology, the Scientologists were rightly banned from WP for inappropriate edits. But here the Aesthetic Realists have often been coddled by admins and long-time editors, who haven't called them on their B.S. That's the main reason the article is as bad as it is.
5. I gave up on trying to improve the article long ago, and unfortunately have no plans to resume. I just don't have that kind of time on my hands any more. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article: This article was written through an exhaustive process of editing and working together between numerous people who disagreed about many issues. There was consensus. Look at the history of the article and the talk page.

Numerous neutral editors were involved in the process.

Regarding offensive language:

In this posting, User:Michaelbluejay insults and belittles other editors, whose editing is referred to as “B.S.” This has happened before. It is contrary to Wikipedia good faith policy WP:AGF and etiquette protocol WP:EQ. Nathan43 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit greaty from more uninvolved editors, people who don't bring such strong affiliations or sentiments to the discussion. I'd really recommend you try to get some more third-party input from less invested folks at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. It's a nice process and might be helpful. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think this is a good idea. LoreMariano (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Trouver, the use of peculiar language such as "the change from homosexuality" to describe attempts to change sexual orientation is a major example of what is wrong with the article. Such expressions can of course be used in direct quotations from Aesthetic Realism literature, but there is otherwise no reason why they should ever be used. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll note again that I intend to restore my changes unless other editors can explain why I shouldn't. So far I've seen objections to only a small number of changes, and petty and fairly unconvincing objections at that. Nathan43 says above that, "This article was written through an exhaustive process of editing and working together between numerous people who disagreed about many issues." That may well be, but the result was nonetheless a poor article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to Lede without Consensus

Re: FreeKnowledgeCreator's comment: "If you look at properly written articles about philosophies or movements, you'll see that "a" is the term used."

Actually, there are precedents for using "the" rather than "a" in reference to a philosophy.

"The" is used to identify the philosophy of Hegel: "Hegelianism is the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel which can be summed up by the dictum that "the rational alone is real", which means that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories." [1]

"The" is also used for the philosophy of Kant: "Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher born in Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). [2]

Since G.W.F. Hegel founded one philosophy, and Eli Siegel founded one philosophy, and Immanuel Kant founded one philosophy, "the" philosophy is appropriate for all three. Nathan43 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of this minor change makes me understand why other editors have given up trying to improve the article. Sorry, but "a" is indeed the grammatically correct and appropriate term to use here. "Hegelianism" and "Kantianism" are in no sense comparable to Aesthetic Realism. Hegel and Kant never chose "Hegelianism" and "Kantianism" as labels for their respective philosophies, and in any case their thought underwent revisions that make it doubtful that one can isolate a specific "philosophy" in their work. That's why the articles you refer to are not written in the way that, for example, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is. Rand created a specific philosophy she called Objectivism, which is why "a" is the term used there. Aesthetic Realism is comparable to Objectivism, hardly to "Hegelianism" and "Kantianism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of mutual cooperation I wish to all: Happy Bastille Day! Trouver (talk)

Since other editors have been too lazy or too distracted to make any kind of objection to most of my changes, I am going to go ahead and restore them over the next few days. If other editors want to be disruptive and revert uncontroversial corrections to grammar and punctuation, then that is their look out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Voilà! The Disambiguation Note at the top of the article solves the controversy about the first sentence! There are several usages of "aesthetic realism" in philosophy, aesthetics and metaphysics, but this article refers to the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel. "The" is more appropriate here. It is grammatically correct. There is nothing wrong with the first sentence of this article and if it is changed the change will be reverted. Regards to all. Trouver (talk)

If you actually follow the link to the disambiguation page you think resolves the question, you will find that "Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel in 1941." - Outerlimits (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This article in the British Journal of Aesthetics distinguishes the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel from the term as recently used in analytic philosophical aesthetics, and further explains my comment above. [[3]] Trouver (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Trouver, I have very little interest in debating this issue with you. As a matter of fact, I have no interest in debating it at all, since you've been unable to understand or properly respond to anything I've said. Your comments appear to be simply a desperate attempt to score points against me. I can't find the note you mention, and it does not, in any case, show anything about whether Aesthetic Realism should be called "a philosophy" or "the philosophy" in the lead. (Outerlimits is correct about the disambiguation page, and I thank him for pointing it out). That you would be so fixated on this one detail about the lead, to the exclusion of anything else to do with the article, is certainly strange. Do you have any comments about the article that do not relate to the "a versus the" issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should cease debating issues here until we have an arbitrator, and there are many points we agree upon. I like your addition of "poet and critic" and the other changes you have already made to the lede. As I said before, I think this is an improvement. I agree with, and thank you for, the changes of a technical kind that you have made throughout the article, such as moving citations to the end of sentences instead of having them in the middle of sentences. I also agree that any extra spaces should be removed, and I appreciate the time you spent doing this and the attention you have given to this article. In order to resolve our remaining differences, I ask that, as the Dispute Resolution Page recommends, all comments on this page address content only and not the conduct of other editors. I am hopeful that we can work together in good faith on this article. Trouver (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In practice, it's often impossible to completely separate discussions about content from discussions about user conduct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Eugenics in "Opposition to Racism"

This comment refers to the definition of eugenics you have added. The problem is (and this is not your fault) that the word "eugenics" does not even appear in this essay, and so the addition of so much about eugenics is misleading. "The Equality of Man" is an essay which aims "to show that Men Are Equal--in the clear and full meaning of the words" and aims to establish "better definitions of Heredity and Environment." Siegel criticizes how biology and the study of heredity were used "to show the inevitable inferiority of most men" and the essay was published in 1923, when eugenics was popular, but since he does not refer to eugenics specifically, this appears to have been original research. I am not reverting, since that would be reverting to something incorrect, but the first sentence of this section must be corrected, and I will make a suggestion, as soon as time permits, for all to comment on. I suggest that no more word changes of any kind be made to this article until we have an arbitrator, so that all editors have a chance to thoroughly review them all. Trouver (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC) additions/deletions/changes ofTrouver (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm happy to accept your explanation of this matter. If you can modify the material to make it more accurate or suitable to the article, then please do. Thanks for trying to find a way to do that other than simply reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The original sentence is:

In one of his earliest essays, “The Equality of Man” (1923), Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics[91]

I suggest a more accurate sentence is:

In one of his earliest essays, “The Equality of Man” (1923), Siegel criticized "the present common feeling that men are unequal" (p.41).

The citation discussing eugenics should be removed, and the section would continue with the existing second sentence. Please comment everybody. Trouver (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Any other opinions about this change? Trouver (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Change to section on homosexuality

FreeKnowledge, what might seem a minor change to you might not seem minor to other editors in this very sensitive section. For example, the parenthetical passage you have removed("he was no longer impelled towards men") might seem redundant, but emphasizes the fact that the change being described was not simply a change in behavior but a change in physical response. This is the most contentious aspect of the article, and it concerns living persons. I'm not going to revert but will wait for other editors to weigh in, and unlike my change regarding eugenics above (which nobody seems to care about), I think there will be comments on this change. For myself, although I am not one of those personally involved, I think the deleted parenthetical passage clarifies the nature of the change and therefore should be reverted. Trouver (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason the inclusion of the phrase "he was no longer impelled toward men" is needed here is because it describes the nature of the change Kranz and other men are saying happened to them which goes beyond simply a repressing of sexual attraction toward men (which has in some other instances been described as change). I would disagree that the phrase is redundant. In any event this is very far from an insignificant edit to the article. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to inform me that my change was not minor. I did not mark it as minor, or consider it that way. The "sensitive" section on homosexuality is poorly written and tendentious, and clearly needs major changes. To explain that Sheldon Kranz "was no longer impelled towards men" when he allegedly changed his sexual orientation is an insult to the intelligence of every reader of this article. For a man, a homosexual orientation is by definition sexual attraction toward men, and a heterosexual orientation is by definition sexual attraction toward women. Therefore, when Kranz supposedly changed his sexual orientation, the alleged change consisted of his ceasing to be attracted toward men and becoming attracted to women instead. Whether the change actually occurred or not, understanding what it is supposed to mean is perfectly simple, and doesn't require the "explanation" I removed. There is no need to note that the change was not simply one of behavior, because sexual orientation (as educated people know) is not the same thing as sexual behavior. If some readers (children, perhaps) are unaware of what "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality" mean, then we can link to the appropriate articles. You raise the red flag of BLP, which is in fact irrelevant, since Sheldon Kranz is long dead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this section went through a great deal of back and forth between editors, which resulted in some redundancy. How about if the sentence is changed to: "Kranz said that as his way of seeing the world changed, his sexual preference also changed: he was no longer impelled toward men, but experienced love for a woman for the first time in his life. Kranz was married for 25 years (until his death) to Obie award-winning actress Anne Fielding." Comments? Trouver (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is not wording that I myself would have used, but I think it is preferable to what is in the article now. You may as well make the change. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a whole lot wrong with the suggested wording, the most compelling of which is that it's not based on any cited reliable source. I would like to check the sources for the claims made, so we'll need as many citations as are needed to support them. It's also needlessly detailed. And there's absolutely no reason to include such peacock preening trivia as "Obie award-winning", nor does his wife's name seem material in any way. I'm not sure why anyone thought it relevant that Kranz was a World War II veteran, either. I believe that what was actually published in the "H Persuasion" was more or less that Kranz claimed that he was initially exclusively homosexual, yet after his first Aesthetic Realism lesson he never had sex with a man again, and began to desire women. That's a much clearer way of stating it, and attributes the claim to Kranz. I suppose we'll have to dig the book out of storage. And of course, the real problem with the section on Aesthetic Realism's ex-gay efforts is that nowhere is their claim counterbalanced by the well-established mainstream consensus that such change is not possible, and such efforts are harmful. This is required by WP:FRINGE. Instead the current article seeks to attribute this mainstream view to a small coterie of gay therapists, gay advocacy groups and gay activists, who are further characterized as "hostile to Aesthetic Realism" instead of "dismissive of Aesthetic Realism's claims". We are told that it is these groups, rather than, say national press such as David Susskind and The New York Times who characterized what AR was offering as a gay cure, which of course is not true. We should also probably place AR's idea...that male homosexuality arises as a result of distaste or hatred for women... historically, as a theory popular in the psychoanalytic era, but discarded in modern thought. One is also left with the idea that AR has repudiated these views rather than merely stopped discussing them, which is of course not the case. There are also other issues: "In keeping with its general approach," is unneeded special pleading, for example, and the heading "Victim of the Press" should be removed, as the "Victim of the Press" campaign is not the main topic of the paragraph that follows, which is actually still about AR's doctrine on homosexuality. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Trouver's suggested change because it weakens the sentence. It is much clearer to say that Sheldon Kranz changed from homosexuality than to say his sexual preference changed, which is admittedly the same thing but expressed in a less straight-forward fashion. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The expression "changed from homosexuality" is Aesthetic Realist jargon that doesn't belong in the article except in direct quotations. Few, if any, people who aren't supportive of or associated with Aesthetic Realism would consider it appropriate language. And to Outerlimits above, let me repeat that Trouver's proposed wording is not something I would have come up with myself. It's better than what's in the article now only in that it avoids the redundancy I pointed out. If material in the homosexuality section isn't sourced properly, then of course it needs to be removed (some of the refs simply give something kind "the David Susskind show" as a source, which I doubt is acceptable. Instead, we would need other sources that covered events). I also agree that the fact that Anne Fielding won an award for her acting isn't relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As a man who changed from homosexuality through my study of Aesthetic Realism and someone new to this talk page, I am perplexed by the objection to the phrase, "changed from homosexuality." To quote one source, Websters Dictionary <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change>, the first definition of the intransitive verb "change" is "to become different." This describes precisely what occurred in my life. I was homosexual; I became heterosexual. If this isn't appropriate language and readily understandable to the vast majority of English speaking people over the age of (conservatively) 12, I don't know what is.Sydney Bufford (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether you have changed your sexual orientation or not has no relevance to this discussion. You may happen to think that "changed from homosexuality" is appropriate language, but to me (and I think to the overwhelming majority of people) it's simply a peculiar, confusing piece of jargon. Were it really an appropriate expression, then it might be widely used, but in fact no article on Wikipedia that deals with attempts to change sexual orientation uses the expression except this one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that "change" means "become different" doesn't mean that "Kranz changed from homosexuality" is idiomatic; quite the opposite. If you apply your definition, "Kranz changed from homosexuality" would mean "Kranz became different from homosexuality" which is fairly nonsensical. Kranz and homosexuality were different things at all times. FreeKnowledgeCreator, I didn't and don't mean to discourage you from making any incremental changes that you feel improve the article, but did want to make sure that uncited assertions didn't get introduced (such as putting AR's assertion that Kranz's sexual orientation changed as "his way of seeing the world changed" into Kranz's mouth, for example, as we have no source quoting Kranz on this point.) - Outerlimits (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite right. If a man broke his leg, and the leg were then healed by some method, we wouldn't say that he "changed from having a broken leg." There's no reason to use similar kinds of weird language to describe alleged changes in sexual orientation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already read more on this topic than I ever would, but I just have to say that "he was no longer impelled towards men" is the most awkward way of saying, "he no longer had sexual desire for men" or "he was no longer gay" that I've ever seen. "Impelled"? Who uses this term regarding sexual orientation? It is archaic. I'm not romantically impelled to other people, I desire them, fall in love/lust, have a crush, etc.

This seems like some buzz-word that is being used to be consistent to some ideological principle but just because founders of this movement used certain terms or phrases doesn't mean that the writing of the article has to be awkwardly written, too.

Our understanding of sexual orientation has evolved over the past century and I don't think anyone, straight, gay, bi or queer, thinks of sexual attraction being a matter of being "impelled" towards another person. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "no longer impelled towards men" is an example of the kind of language that needs to be removed from that section. By all means remove it, or do whatever else you can to improve the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)|

This controversy is not about anyone's preferred phraseology, but rather reporting in a straightforward fashion how Kranz himself described what occurred with him, and since his statements are published (and I find it understandable English in spite of the effort to characterize it as "peculiar") I think this should reflect how Kranz expressed himself. He said he "changed from homosexuality." It is also clear that Kranz felt homosexuality as an impulsion of a kind he didn't like rather than as an "attraction" or "desire." Throughout The H Persuasion we have various statements he made about his sexual attraction to men and how he felt about it such as "My feeling was that I never felt good before, during and after, though I was propelled and compelled as much as anyone." Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-910492-14-X.. Kranz was an editor with Random House and rather accomplished with the English language. He wrote short stories and taught English literature as he himself says in the transcript of the David Susskind Show. My point here is that while others might express themselves differently these sentences are about Kranz and his change and should reflect how he himself described it. Living persons are still involved. Although Sheldon Kranz died years ago, his wife, Anne Fielding, is still living, teaching and performing as an actress today.

And by the way, regardless of a comment above, we do have a source for Kranz saying that as his way of seeing the world changed his sexual orientation changed. "Aesthetic Realism is the first body of knowledge which presents a way of seeing the world that incidentally affects one in terms of the way one sees women." Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-910492-14-X. "The way you see the world is inaccurate. As that changes, the H situation will change." (Kranz quoting what Eli Siegel said to him in an Aesthetic Realism lesson.) Kranz, Sheldon (1971). The H Persuasion. New York: Definition Press. p. 26. ISBN 0-910492-14-X.. Cyberpathfinder (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the name of Kranz's surviving spouse should be removed, and immediately if you feel that mention of her marriage is potentially embarrassing. The name is trivia, rather than something which actually illuminates the subject of Aesthetic Realism. And as I think we've established, we're not obliged to use Kranz's words when what he said can be stated in plain, idiomatic English, in a way that is clearer and more accessible to our readers. The subject of the section is AR's claims about homosexuality, not the language in which they were couched. Insofar as Kranz's statement are material, they can be summarized rather than quoted when that makes the article more lucid and concise.- Outerlimits (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution In Progress

TeeVeeed (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A note from the volunteer monitoring this dispute: I have volunteered to assist in this dispute. In an effort to be fair, I did not read the article, the history of changes to the article, (yet), and I have just begun to digest the facts here on this talk page as related to the subject. I must also confess a complete ignorance of the article subject Aesthetic Realism. My initial comprehension of the subject was that it is some type of artistic style, or even an architectural style such-as a design movement. So you're all going to have to excuse my complete lack of familiarity with the topic as it appears to be defined here. TeeVeeed (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. On this Talk page, and I think on the DR page, Aesthetic Realists try to claim that the article achieved consensus. This is a bald-faced lie, and it's not the first time they've made it, or that I've called them out on it. For the record, I and other editors have continuously objected vociferously to the poor quality of the article as resulted from the Aesthetic Realists' attempts to own it, insert puffery, and censor criticism.
2. The Aesthetic Realists are also trying to avoid being called out on their B.S. by hiding behind WP:AGF. The thing is, the title of that policy is "ASSUME Good Faith," i.e., when we DON'T KNOW others' motivations. But the bad-faith edits and Talk of the Aesthetic Realists is painfully clear, and I imagine they're clear to anyone who's not an Aesthetic Realist. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)