Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conversion therapy"

Revision as of 20:50, April 30, 2007

I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-AmesG_yo! 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --Ed Poor 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 1

This is flawed citation, American Psychiatric Association, [1] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling. RobS 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.

Also, we need to distinguish between "brainwashing" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --Ed Poor 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. Murray 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, I disagree.

Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am intollerent of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something other than what it says, or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, before using them. RobS 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.

The desire to make the source seem to say what you want it to say ... --Ed Poor 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the Deceit talk page is the best example yet. [2] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [3] it quickly became obvious why this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I personally get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. (Full discussion). RobS 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!

I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.

There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.

I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --Ed Poor 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [4] Let's be fair about this. RobS 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [5] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. Timppeli 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can personally attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. RobS 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? Timppeli 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. RobS 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 2

• the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.^[1]

Neither citation, the original Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda, or what it is quoting from, Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy, use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. RobS 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:

• "Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
• "Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens." (2001, 83)

I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a prima facie impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--All Fish Welcome 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• most authorities
  • Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. RobS 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 3

• the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..^[2]

Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. RobS 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

1. ↑ Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda
2. ↑ http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-AmesG_yo! 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. Czolgolz 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)