text:
Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous/Archive 1

Comment Requested
I have posted requests at the LGBT Studies, Psychology, and Religion WikiProjects for comment on this article and the related DYK nomination. I consider the article unbalanced as it omits the large amount of evidence about the ineffectiveness of conversion therapy approaches, and the problems they can cause. EdChem (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * do you have any sources that specifically mention HA to avoid WP:SYNTH?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a twelve-step program. Conversion therapy is as relevant here as it would be at AA. Lionel (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the conversion therapy article:
 * Conversion therapy ... is one type of sexual orientation change effort that attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. ... The American Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association states that conversion therapy is a type of psychiatric treatment "based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality by techniques including ... spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure."

The Homosexuals Anonymous article quotes the organisation itself as aiming for "freedom from homosexuality" (which is wiki-linked to ex-gay) so the goal is clearly and explicitly changing sexual orientation. The founder of HA is quoted in the article's lede as saying "homosexual inclination may be healed", which fits precisely within the a priori assumption laid down by the APA for conversion therapy. Step 4 speaks of restoring "our true personhood" and step 6 indicates "our true reality that as humankind, we are part of God's heterosexual creation", which confirms that the program is one of conversion therapy. The techniques used clearly are spiritually based ("God" appears throughout the steps, and a Christian Cross in the HA symbol, which show the religious orientation). Group support and pressure are integral to all 12-step approaches, including this one.

Returning to the conversion therapy article (leaving the indications of references in in this quote):
 * Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[3][8][9] The advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation.[8] The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United States vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association), to recommendations that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association).[3][6][10]

Homosexuals Anonymous may adopt methodoliges similar to a regular twelve-step program, but it differs in vital ways. Programs like AA are aimed at promoting "recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems", but no mainstream scientific organisation considers homosexuality as any of these. Changing sexual orientation as advocated by ex-gay groups like HA is extremely controversial, and to bypass covering it from the article simply makes it unencyclopedic and unbalanced. EdChem (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's dispense with some misconceptions. Not all ex-gay groups promote conversion therapy. And conversion therapy is not the only approach used to deal with unwanted same sex attractions by some ex-gay groups. In fact, Alan Chambers said he agrees that people cannot necessarily change their sexual orientation, and furthermore even rejects the term "ex-gay." Lastly, most ex-gay groups focus on abstaining from homosexual relationships rather than a complete sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual. Lionel (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * the opening paragraph from WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." So stating that "conversion therapy is a disputed and highly criticized as an ineffective treatment method", and then add "HA promotes freedom from homosexuality" and and you get "HA is highly criticized as ineffective treatment method for homosexuality".  you need a source that specifically mentioned HA otherwise by wiki standards it can not be included in the article because it is  original research.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Coffeepusher, that is a nice quotation from WP:SYNTH, but also an excellent example of spin; the SYNTH in the examples at SYNTH is not what is being proposed here. A rather more reasonable summary would be: "HA is an ex-gay organisation.  Ex-gay organisations have been heavily criticised for their ineffectiveness and for acting from unjustified a priori assumptions about homosexuality."   Both statements are verifiable and sourced.  No "conclusion" drawing the two together is needed.  "All dogs have four legs.  My cat has four legs.  Therefore, my cat is a dog." is an example of unjustifiable synthesis and a logical fallacy.  "All humans are mammals.  All mammals have skeletons.  Therefore, humans have skeletons." is an example of a logical consequence that flows inevitably from the preceding statements, and is neither synthesis nor in need of reference beyond referencing the preceding statements.  We are much more in example 2 territory, no matter how much anyone might try to cast it as example 1.

 * Incidentally, while you are defending that the article is balanced, would you care to explain why a reference titles "Destroying lives around the world" is used only to support the locations of HA chapters? Does that article truly not have anything critical of HA to say that is wiki-notable?  There is a brief mention that the founder of HA was expelled for engaging in sexual acts with his patients, but nothing more.  Don't you think that the fact those patients were men is relevant?  The effectiveness section mentions nothing about the myriad of reputable studies of different approaches to changing sexual orientation, which have uniformly shown high rates of failure.  Even if HA's approach is genuinely novel (which I don't believe), surely some recognition that attempts to change sexual orientation are near-universally ineffective is relevant?  EdChem (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The reference to "Destroying lives around the world" was added by me. That article only mentions HA's locations worldwide, so I only felt justified in referencing that aspect of this HA article.  Of course, the rest of "Destroying lives around the world" talks about how destructive organizations such as HA can be, but it did not specifically attack HA by name.

 * EdChem, I am in 100% agreement with you that this HA article is extremely unbalanced by not elucidating how non-mainstream its premise is and how destructive it can potentially be to people's lives. I don't have a lot of time to search for the right references to help make the article more balanced, but I'd be delighted to assist you in that effort as time permits.  Thanks!  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * FYI, this article has been nominated to appear on the main page in the DYK section, nomination here. I have severe reservations about highlighting an article in this state on the main page.  EdChem (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I always find it funny how when you get on a talk page and ask for a WP:RS to back up someone's claims you are usually accused of either pushing a point of view or "defending the article." I am not defending that this article is balanced, I am asking you for a WP:RS that specifically states that HA is a conversation therapy that has the problems you are stating.  You haven't provided any source that states this.  if you use two sources, one of which doesn't mention the subject matter of the article, and combine them to form a conclusion about the topic of the article that is WP:SYNTH.  I AM NOT STATING THAT THERE ISN'T PROBLEMS WITH HA, I AM ASKING YOU FOR A FREAKING ARTICLE THAT ACTUALLY STATES THAT.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I actually can't believe I am doing this, but I am going to defend that this article is balanced. It is a fair and accurate representation of all the WP:RS concerning HA.  Just because it doesn't support my world view, and because it isn't critical of the topic matter (a movement I am really critical of in real life), I have to admit that it does fairly represent all the reliable sources written about Homosexuals anonymous.  I can't find a single reliable source that states Homosexual Anonymous isn't the one movement that has a success rate.  Now I am not in any way opposed to putting conversion therapy in the see also section, I am not opposed to that at all, but I am opposed to taking data gathered from a different movement, that uses different methods, and lumping them together to make a claim about Homosexuals anonymous.  and I am opposed to this because I am a wikipedia editor and I believe in the wikipedia project, even when it doesn't fully represent my ideas of what the truth is.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * ps, I have checked the links below and have not found anything that is critical of HA except those that are critical of cook (which is in the article).Coffeepusher (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From the link provided below, the book Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences, edited by Linda Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel, published in 2003 by Columbia University Press. Quoting Page 689 in the chapter "The Practice and Ethics of Conversion Therapy" (pp. 681–698) by Douglas C Haldeman: "Fundamentalist Christian groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland are the most visible purveyors of conversion therapy." So, can we now drop the argument that I haven't provided a source that explicitly links HA and conversion therapy? You are also ignoring that the APA offers a definition which HA fits directly. Ex-gay groups practice different approaches to conversion therapy, all of which are ineffective because they attempt to change sexual orientation, which is not a behaviour or an addiction or a compulsion (such as are the focus of programs like AA and NA and GA). EdChem (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, commenting on "ps, I have checked the links below and have not found anything that is critical of HA except those that are critical of cook", I'm inclined to wonder how carefully you checked. Looking at the book In the Name of the Father: The Rhetoric of the New Southern Baptist Convention by Carl L. Kell and L. Raymond Camp, published in 2001 by Southern Illinois University Press. Quoting page 99 of the chapter "The Rhetorics of Silence and Abomination": "To effect this change [in sexual orientation], an organization called "Homosexuals Anonymous" has developed a "fourteen-step" method. The alleged generosity of this approach may seem similar to the Alcoholics Anonymous method, yet closer study suggests otherwise. Both groups emphasise avoidance behaviors. However, while AA groups accept the person along with their problems, Homosexuals Anonymous stresses that the person is guilty of the sin of homosexuality, must admit it, renounce it, and then accept heterosxuality as a necessary condition to becoming a Christian." I consider this not only critical of HA, but significant for the article in indicating the difference between HA and traditional twelve-step programs. EdChem (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yah I read that, the sentence prior it describes HA as an "ex-gay movement." as for the criticism I think that it demonstrated that the authors actually read and understood the 14 steps...it isn't critical, it is an accurate read of their 14 steps which is reproduced verbatim on this page. How is it critical of the organization, or for that matter how does it add anything that isn't already on the page?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * oh, I actually like that. good addCoffeepusher (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * '... ex-gay movement that practices conversion therapy' is fine with me, it was a form of words I considered too. I'll correct the quote, though - it should be complete and accurate.  EdChem (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in Dispute
EdChem makes very valid points in the section above. He and I are in agreement that this article severely lacks balance for the reasons cited above. Since this article has been nominated for DYK, time is of the essence. Therefore, I have placed the "Bias" tag at the top of this article to alert readers of this balance dispute. Hopefully, we can improve this article's balance reasonably soon and then remove the tag once a consensus has been reached. --Art Smart Chart/ Heart 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources: I am sure other sources can easily be found to inject some balance into the article. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Book Homosexuals Anonymous: A Psychoanalytic and Theological Analysis of Colin Cook and His Cure for Homosexualit by Arthur Frederick Ide, published in 1987. According to amazon.com: "Exposing the duplicity and nefarious counseling practices of Colin Cook's Quest Learning Center, this book details Cook's philosophy on how to rid oneself of homosexuality--and what the Bible really says. It details the philosophy, psychology and theology of Cook and compares it to current thought and practice."
 * Book Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, published in 2007. Pages 63-65 discusses HA
 * Book Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences by Linda Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel, published in 2003. Page 689 in the chapter "The Practice and Ethics of Conversion Therapy" provides some data on efficacy.
 * Book In the Name of the Father: The Rhetoric of the New Southern Baptist Convention by Carl L. Kell and L. Raymond Camp, published in 2001. Page 99 in the chapter "The Rhetorics of Silence and Abomination" provides an interesting com[arison of HA and AA.

I'm gong to remove the tag, not saying that there isn't work to be done, but that the work is getting done and neutrality doesn't seem to be in dispute we are just trying to find sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Coffeepusher, by removing the tag before a consensus on this page to do so has been reached, you are in violation of the guidelines. Remove the tag prematurely again, and I will report you.  The guideline reads in part, "if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."  You write, "neutrality doesn't seem to be in dispute."  Wrong.  I wouldn't have placed the tag in the first place if neutrality weren't in dispute.  Now leave it there until we reach a CONSENSUS that it should be removed.  A consensus doesn't mean just you, personally, in your opinion.  It means all of us.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  11:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * perhaps you should take a look at the recent edit history? what exactly is in conflict?  It appears that all the editors are working together well, there are no edit wars, there are no source conflicts, editors have been modifying each edit keeping the spirit and mind of the past edit, what is the current dispute? oh and don't vandalize my talk page ever again.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It's vandalism to remove an NPOV tag before a talk page consensus has been reached, and I would have thought that you knew that. --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  12:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * "answer the question Claire" where exactly is the lack of consensus among the editors.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * EdChem, what do you think? Is it neutral enough yet?  I think it needs more work, but won't be able to contribute more changes until this evening (Houston time).  I'd like EdChem's opinion in the mean time.  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  12:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * (e.c.) Coffeepusher, I came here and said that HA is an example of conversion therapy, about which you disagreed. I provided references, one of which was used to add a link to conversion therapy to the lede sentence. You reverted the inclusion of the link, changing it to ex-gay and asserting the book did not say conversion therapy.  I added the full quote, proving you were wrong, you offered a compromise form of words (which is fine)... but now you have removed the quote from the reference, stating that what it says is not disputed.  I added material on Cook to the History - you removed it.  HINT:  This is evidence of a disagreement.  I have been considering copying the article to my user talk, working on it there, and then bringing the completed version back - and anticipating immediate objections, simultaneously requesting input from the noticeboard that deals with SYNTH and OR.  Because I am certainly feeling some resistance to getting a more balanced article here.  EdChem (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Clearly there is still dispute here; specific phrases in the article do not need to be identified to justify keeping the template. As a group we were doing well resolving disagreements civilly; let's try to keep it that way. Neither this nor this meet the definition of vandalism per policy, so please consider not throwing the word around lightly. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Ed, I apologize that you feel that way. I have been reading the edits in an entirely different light and please allow me to explain. So I did missread the quote when I changed conversion therapy to ex-gay, I read the first part, you read the second. when you changed it to conversion therapy, you called it a conversion therapy movement...which didn't quite read right to me. looking at the quote I saw a compromise which is the way it stands now and I thought we had found some common ground. I removed the quote from the reference because the quote itself shows up right when you click the link (the only time I have seen quotes used in references is when it is a hard copy not an e-copy, in the case of e-copy's it is easier to just link which is what we have done), and I was trying to reduce the reference section in the edit screen for better readability. The only thing I have removed from the history is some WP:SYNTH which was "Cook's behaviour fits with the thesis outlined by Ralph Blair in his monograph Ex-Gay, and quoted in Haldeman of religious conversionists often being "individuals deeply troubled about their own sexual orientation" neither Haldelman or Blair mention that Cook fits this thesis, that was WP:OR on your behalf. I did move [some other edits you did around] like when you added the criticism of HA's policy regarding Christianity in the effectiveness of HA section (criticisms of their views of Christianity have nothing to do with HA's effectiveness), and the research on the effectiveness of HA which you placed in the history section (I felt it worked better in the effectiveness section rather than the history section). you will find both of those in tact but in sections that make more sense due to headings. again I am sorry you felt this was hostile, I liked your edits and was trying to help you out.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your intervention, VQuakr. I had thought Coffeepusher's removal of the NPOV tag was vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, which includes two types of vandalism that I thought applied:  (1) "Abuse of tags -- This includes baseless removal of policy and related tags."  (2) "Avoidant vandalism -- Removing afd, copyvio and other related tags."  To me, Coffeepusher's baseless removal of the NPOV tag looked like vandalism in a vain attempt to improve the odds for a successful DYK nomination.  However, I see you read WP:VANDTYPES and its repeated phrase "related tags" more narrowly than I had, so I'll follow your interpretation from now on.  Thanks again for the intervention.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  09:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, thanks for your post and your comments. I have been dealing with stresses at DYK, and admit I have probably been over-influenced by preconceptions. I apologise for that. I agree we had come to a reasonable compromise on the lede sentence - which is helpful progress, of course - but I believe that the quotes are valuable as they prevent future disputation about the descriptors "ex-gay" and "conversion therapy". Looking up, there was explicit disagreement over these terms from another editor as well. I recognise your point about readability of the references, and welcome discussion of how best to balance readability with avoid future disputation from others seeking to return to a more unbalanced version of the article, along the lines of the version that was nominated for DYK. And on DYK, for the record, I have no objection to this article being included provided a suitable hook is used and the article itself is balanced.

Regarding your editing of the history for SYNTH concerns, I had intended to expand on the addition to include a quote from Cook himself which discusses struggling over his sexual orientation. You, of course, could not know that waa my intention, and it is a shame that I did not give an indication or (better) complete the edit in a single session. I do intend to re-insert those comments, along with a more complete history drawing on several sources including comments from Cook reported in the LA Times. I hope we can discuss my complete set of changes / suggestions once I post them. Hopefully we can both do better in the future; for my part, I'll try to interpret changes with more good faith. EdChem (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, EdChem. Let us know when you are done with your edits, and if at that point others concur on neutrality, we can then pull the NPOV tag.  Thanks again.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  10:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Ed, here is my interpretation of synth so you can see where I am coming from. one of my first edits was on the xenu page, where I took the section in the xenu myth where big daddy Hubbard states xenu placed the people in the volcano's 75 billion years ago(or something like that), I then added a geographic note using two references that those volcano's were not even in existence at the time Hubbard stated. After a long discussion with an editor about synth I removed the section because I could not find a reliable source which actually mentioned the geographic data and xenu in the same paper.  just because both sources specifically dealt with volcano's and the timeframe of their existence, unless both contained the topic of the page (xenu) I was synthesizing two separate sources to come to a original research conclusion.  I am hard line about this policy probably because I have edited the scientology pages, and for years it was an all out war over there, complete with casualties, and the only way to survive was to keep strictly to the policies.  Your description of what you plan to do with the section I deleted does not put me at ease, please elaborate.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Coffeepusher, if the consensus is that my edits are unacceptable under SYNTH, I will accept that. I do not intend to edit war about my suggestions.  However, I will likely invite comment from experienced and uninvolved editors on the subject.  In the meantime, if you look at this newspaper report, you will see Cook has himself discussed his struggles with same-sex attraction, talking about his naked massages during counseling sessions with his HA clients and the "falls" he has had during his marriage.  His de-frocking in 1974 for having sex with a man is documented, as is the fact that 9 of the 14 steps are based on his own experiences.  There are plenty of references on Cook.  EdChem (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I vote to remove the NPOV tag that I originally placed. The article is now as neutral as I think it can get.  Other opinions?  Now's the time to voice them.  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 28bytes (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Ed, absolutely add those quotes about his struggles with same sex attraction. I think that is in fact necessary to understanding Cook. the problem I would have is when you tie that to the research done by Blair. the intellectual leap done when you add that suggests the conclusion that his conversion to religion was fueled by his sexual struggles, a claim which we actually don't have the data to back up and of which Blair didn't mention or research Cook at all. that is what I consider Synth.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

as I stated in the edit summary, we are applying a generalized statement to a specific case.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Coffeepusher, Blair isn't talking about conversion to religion, he is talking about advocates of conversion from homosexuality through religion. Cook is unquestionably a religious connversionist, that is, an advocate of conversion through religion.  Besen (pp. 93-94) speaks of Cook's "burning desire to minister" and his sexual struggles and "insatiable sexual apetite" (more than 1000 sexual partners) being the motivation for the 14 steps, a program that is unquestionably a conversion through religion program.  I don't know if there is any form of words that you would find acceptable, but I thought it was worth clarifying this point. EdChem (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

advert
the article reads like an advert spelling out/dictating its agenda. Prose usage instead of attention-grabbing lists could help change that adn a general review. And then "organization" is WP:OR right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

 * how??? only two of the 10 citations come from primary sources, the rest come from reliable secondary sources.  it does not use peacock language, rather represents what the secondary sources state in a neutral tone.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I count 3 of 10, but I think the point of Lihaas's post was that the organizations 14 steps currently dominates the article in terms of layout and content. It is true that mission statements and the like are not usually quoted in their entirety in articles on organizations. Is there any reason to keep it like that? VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * sorry for the miscount, I would say that the 14 steps needs to be kept as is because 1. it is unique to the organization and any summery or paraphrase would not accurately represent what they are and would probably distort them one way or another, 2. they are actually the reason I came to this page, when I heard there was an organization that used 14 steps I wondered how they differed from the 12 we are all familiar with, 3. I can think of no better way of showing what this organization stands for in an unbiased way. if it dominates the article then as I have been stating, lets bring some more reliable sources to the tableCoffeepusher (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I would suggest mentioning that the organization has a 14 point system modeled on AA's 12 steps, with a reference to the primary source that contained the full text of the 14 steps. "Unique to the organization" is true for many mission statements. Mentioning what an organization has to say about itself is important, but review in secondary sources is a much better way of presenting the organization neutrally. I do think that writing the entire 14 step list is overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a particularly strong argument for exclusion, but I notice that Alcoholics Anonymous does not spell out the twelve steps (though they do have their own article). If we could find a suitable source, analysis of the differences between HA's 14 steps and the AA's steps would be interesting to include as well. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not inherently a poor article, there are just refinements that need to be made. WP:Prose would also suggest an alternative, and i think VQuakr seems to have the right idea about keeping the content, just reorganising and citing it better.Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I removed the 14 steps and replaced them with a link. Does anything else jump out at you as reading like an advert?  If so, I'd be happy to assist making further improvements, but if not, feel free to pull the advert tag whenever you feel comfortable doing so.  Thanks for your insights.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Belay my last. I just learned that EdChem is making comprehensive edits within his user space, and he hasn't yet rolled them out to the article.  Please wait for his version going online before reassessing your advert tag.  Thanks again.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  10:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote to remove the advert tag. Other opinions?  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  23:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It's a wholly different article than when the tag was placed. 28bytes (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New version
Ok, I have posted a new version of the article, adding in content I have been working on in user space. I do not assert that it is 'perfect' or even 'finished', so obviously everyone is free to edit / comment / criticise / whatever as usual. I have also posted a request for feedback at No original research/Noticeboard. EdChem (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, good work on this. I'm going to make a couple of changes, please review them and feel free to revert any you feel strongly about. 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Re conduct v contact, good catch - contact was the word I meant, until you changed it I hadn't even noticed I had written conduct!  EdChem (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm done with my changes; I was going to make a couple more, but they're a little more drastic, so I thought I would bring them up here first. First of all, I think "and it is important to recognise that conversion therapy and the ex-gay movement are outside the mainstream." should either be dropped or cited. I'm not wild about us telling readers what it's important to recognize, as I think it goes against the spirit of WP:NOTED. I think the previous sentence sufficiently conveys the point that this is not scientifically supported. Second, in the lead paragraph, is "ex-gays" acceptable as a noun? I would prefer some language that suggests this is how they consider themselves rather than what Wikipedia is labeling them, but at the very least it should be an adjective, i.e. "ex-gay men". I think it would be much better to simply say "It was founded in 1980 by a pastor and parishioner of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with financial support from the denomination." 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made those changes. As I said, feel free to revert if you feel strongly about them. I also switched some spellings to the American variant for consistency's sake. 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and the changes. I don't mind dropping "and it is important to recognise that conversion therapy and the ex-gay movement are outside the mainstream", just so long as the point is clear.  On the lede, I have re-arranged it so that the attribution of McIntyre as ex-gay (converted homosexual, according to the HA website) works naturally, as well as including that Cook developed the program based on his own experience.  Well done on catching the US spellings, I think in British English. :) I did undo one change, though, as the original source used "antigay".  I also added a study that concludes no harm from attempting to change sexual orientation (on average) and a comment on Cook's departure from HA to the lede.  Sorry to keep tweaking the text.  EdChem (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your changes, and they look good to me. Keep tweaking away! I think your lead rearrangement was a good one. Good catch on "anti-gay"; I must have missed the quotes in the edit window. The only quibble I have at this point is the "converted homosexual" reference to McIntyre: even if the HA website calls him such, I'm still somewhat uncomfortable using either "gay" or "homosexual" as a noun, and it's not necessarily clear that it's HA calling him that rather than us. I'm not sure if I have a better phrasing for it, though. 28bytes (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the lede again... not sure that I've got it to reference properly, though. EdChem (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That works for me. It's neutral and the reference supports it. 28bytes (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ok as I mentioned above, I like the changes...some copy editing needs to be done because the flow is a little choppy but that is a minor thing. I am just not comfortable with the sentence linking cook to a generalized statement about some religious conversionists being uncomfortable with their sexual orientation.  I am not trying to be a dick but it does feel like WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point. Even if Cook's behavior obviously falls into the pattern described by Blair (and it does, IMO), we do need a reliable source to say it. Incidentally, I undid part of your removal, since that reference was used elsewhere in the article. 28bytes (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Coffeepusher, in this edit you also removed a sentence attributed to the LA Times about Cook's "falls". What was the problem as you see it with that sentence? Also, what is your view on removing the neutrality and advert tags? 28bytes, thanks for fixing the referencing problem. I suspect that the WP:RS that you and Coffeepusher seek is the book by Ide that I mentioned above. Unfortunately, it is not on google books. I think the view of SYNTH being used here is overly strict, but I won't edit war about it. Maybe someone out there has a copy of Ide's book. EdChem (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Further proposal:
 * Psychiatrist Ralph Blair in his 1981 monograph Ex-Gay describes practitioners of sexual orientation conversion through religion as often being "individuals deeply troubled about their own sexual orientation, or whose own sexual conversion is incomplete. Blair reports a host of problems with such counselors, including the sexual abuse of clients"; Haldeman describes Cook as "the most notable of such ministers".

This clearly attributes the categorisation of Cook as matching Blair's description to Haldeman, at least I think it does. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Ed, I think that paraphrases exactly what the intent of the writing was. oh, and the new York times sentence was a causality of an overexcited highlighter.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Tags
I note that Art Smart has !voted to remove the neutrality and advert tags, as has 28bytes, and I concur they are no longer justified. Would others who have commented earlier please express a view? Otherwise, failing any objections being raised, I propose they be removed in 24 hours from this time stamp. Art Smart asked that I pass on that he has gone on a wikibreak and won't be commenting here further. He has just received word of his sister's death, so I'm sure we all understand why he has more pressing concerns at this time. I have expressed my condolences at his talk page. EdChem (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 * as I said earlier, I think we are working together and even though there are some differences after the big edit there doesn't seem to be any further need.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Came here via the noticeboard discussion. The article reads okay to me, and I would agree that the Advert tag is probably no longer necessary. The neutrality tag can probably go too, but a criticism section should be expanded. After a thorough read-through, I've tagged a couple of inlines that might be viewed as inappropriate. I will watch the talk page here until they are removed.  Night w   08:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Night w, thanks for stopping by, and for your comments. Regarding the statement you tagged as POV, I have included the full quote with the reference - here is the diff - and removed the tag.  See if this addresses your concern.  The claim of uniqueness goes back to the original draft, and I had not checked it - have now adjusted the text appropriately as seen in the two edits included in this diff.  The undue-inline tag I have no view on - that sentence goes back to the original draft.  As for a criticism section, it is an idea, though the article does not lack material that is critical.  I have some thoughts on what might be included there, but putting it in will take a little time.  EdChem (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing that up. But what's shown in the book is "Both groups emphasise avoidance behaviors", whereas the article text is "emphasize avoidance of unacceptable behaviors". Unless it is from a direct quote, describing something as "unacceptable behaviour" implies a POV. Since it's not a quote, "unacceptable" should be removed. Once removed, what's left is "avoidance behaviours", and this needs to be in commas in order to a) indicate that it's a quote, and b) keep the tone impartial.  Night w   13:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but one doesn't go to a program like HA or AA unless one has behaviours that one finds unacceptable. Would you find the current form any more acceptable if it said "avoidance of undesired behaviours"?  EdChem (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be better.  Night w   15:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the notability tag, I generally feel that the statement it's attached to is not relevant in an encyclopaedia. If another editor disagrees, I won't persist with it. I was looking for sentences that might possibly relate to the Advert tag at the top, and this one stuck out the most.  Night w   13:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The advert tag was added before my re-draft. At that time, the article looked like this with all fourteen steps in the program listed, etc...  EdChem (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a first pass at a criticisms section... see what you think. EdChem (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of any objections, I am going to remove the neutrality tag. EdChem (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The section looks good! Great work!  Night w   08:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you think the expansion needed tag is still required?  EdChem (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's pretty substantial.  Night w   10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, tag removed. EdChem (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

History section
I was reading over the history section and wanted to propose a few changes and see what the consensus was. First I was wondering if counseling was directly tied to HA treatment or if they used the more traditional 12 step approach of sponsorship. it remains unclear in the article. The reason I asked is if it is directly tied to the HA program we could move the third paragraph of the history section into the "ex-gay and conversion therapy" section to root that section closer to HA. The other reason I mention that is the History section is a history of Cooks counseling and fall with a break from HA in the forth paragraph focusing exclusively on his post HA activities. I was wondering if we could summarize that section because its relationship to HA is questionable since they have distanced themselves from Cook 24 years ago yet it continues tracking cooks activities 21 years after that fact.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * As far as I am aware, it is unclear whether the HA counseling is beyond that of a mentor-type position. The History section addresses Cook and McIntyre because I am unaware of much else to cover.  If there were a stand-alone article on Cook, perhaps some of the material could be moved there and a shorter summary left behind.  EdChem (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook after 1986
Regarding the recent removal of information about Cook's advocacy following his departure from HA, is there a sense that Cook is notable enough to merit his own article? If so, I'd support spinning off the post-HA information that Lionelt is removing from this article into a Cook article. That info does seem more relevant to Cook himself than HA, but I wouldn't say it's irrelevant to HA either. 28bytes (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the disputed content belongs in the article as contextual information about HA. I agree that it's not irrelevant. I'm not convinced that Cook is notable enough for his own article. Someone who wants to read up about a band is served by learning what the members did before and after they joined, and similarly it's relevant to HA to learn what a founder did in the same field subsequently to his involvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since Cook is doing essentially the same kind of advocacy now as he did with HA. My thinking is that until/unless Cook gets a standalone article, that info is appropriate for this one. 28bytes (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * while I am on the fence on this one quite a bit, I do lean to the side that this information is relevant and needs to be somewhere either in this one or a stand alone Cook article. and since I have neither the time or inclination to write such an article I think it should stay here.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TOPIC "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information." Cook's activies are not relevant. In fact, the post-1986 content identifies two instances in which HA has moved away from Cook: (1) "This political advocacy was a depature from his role at HA" (2) "Cook has still been promoting the ability to "heal homosexuals" whilst HA was still promoting "freedom from homosexuality." To retain 21 years worth of content just for the sake of contrasting Cook and HA is ludicrous. Lionel (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is coverage of Cook outside the scope of HA suggests that he is notable beyond a WP:BLP1E. I support splitting the section into a standalone article (obviously there will be overlap since an article on Cook would include his HA years). VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually I think Lionelt presents a good case for keeping the material in, because it demonstrates a significant departure between HA and its founder Cook.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coffeepusher. We're only talking about four sentences, and someone researching HA may legitimately want to know how its post-1986 position or activities diverged from those of its founder. There's so little material on Cook post-1986 that the overlap between that article and this would be almost total. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TOPIC, to my knowledge, doesn't make exceptions in order to "demonstrate a significant departure" (in this case 21 years after the fact) nor to satisfy readers' curiosity. Lionel (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

no it doesn't, but it does deal specifically with irrelevant or loosely relevant information, and some of the other editors here believe that cook's section is relevant to the topic.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of NARTH and Catholic Medical Association
Wikipedia needs to be a mainstream encyclopedia and not put WP:FRINGE scientific positions on a par with mainstream science. Given the discussion here, I'm going to remove these two orgnaisations' mention (sourced to their own web sites) from the Conversion therapy paragraph. Please restore the mention if we find third-party sources establishing their position as notable, or if we find a more recent consensus about their inclusion. Do reliable sources mention NARTH in the context of the scientific position on homosexuality or conversion therapy? If not, then why should Wikipedia? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Increased risk of suicide
I've reverted this edit as I'm concerned about it's neutrality and accuracy. The source used, religioustolerence.org states that "People actually get worse. ... Unfortunately, when some homosexual clients find that they have failed to change their sexual orientation, they become deeply depressed. A few commit suicide." What it does not state is that there is an "increased risk of suicide".

Furthermore, I'm not sure this should be on this article at all - the religious tolerence article is discussing general issues with conversion therapy, not Homosexuals Anonymous in particular. If this source is to be incorporated, it should incorporated into the conversion therapy article, not here - otherwise we've got a bit of a WP:COATRACK problem. Finally, please remember that the WP:LEAD of an article should summarise the article and new information should be added within the article, not just in the lead. WormTT  ·  (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point.
 * I can get more sources but it should be in the article since this group is using conversion therapy.
 * In the UK you cannot practice conversion therapy without losing your medical license as it is well established there is no proof that it works.
 * There is though, evidence to the contrary.
 * Will post here. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 * http://whatstheharm.net/reparativetherapy.html - This lists 8 alone  J e n o v a  20 12:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversion therapy - this lists suicide as a risk although it is from WP it will no doubt have references  J e n o v a  20 13:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://jezebel.com/5809853/did-reparative-therapy-cause-a-mans-suicide  J e n o v a  20 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://primetimersstl.org/Documents/The%20Negative%20Effects%20of%20Reparative%20Therapy.pdf - That's a good one
 * Bottom line, the article is about Homosexuals Anonymous and they use conversion therapy.
 * It doesn't take much space to add that their treatment is disowned in every major country and medical profession for having no proof and leading to more problems than it can "cure".
 * Anyone?  J e n o v a  20 13:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, hadn't spotted it was already in conversion therapy, and that there is a source which states that suicidal feelings are doubled and that it can lead to suicide. That doesn't actually mean that it "increases the risk of suicide", which is a very different term. I don't think it's a sourcing issue, it's a location issue (plus a slightly stylistic problem, too many ands in that sentence). I think it would be best to put it in the controversies section first, using a phrase like "can lead to depression and suicide", and then think about including it in the lead.  WormTT   ·  (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as it's in the article.
 * It's too big a negative to leave out.
 * It would be like having an article on oranges and not mentioning they make people blind or explode, etc (for example).
 * "It can lead to suicide", "has a high risk of suicide", "Can increase the risk of suicide"
 * Take your pick but there's references for however it's phrased and it is directly attributed as the cause of a fair few suicides.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And your example of doubling suicidal feelings and an increase in suicide are hand in hand.
 * Like comparing eating to not being hungry, there's tonnes of sources for it  J e n o v a  20 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The research states that the rate of suicidal feelings in is doubled in those who take the therapy - but that doesn't mean that the therapy is causing the increase - it might be that the people who are likely to have the feelings are also those who are likely to go into the therapy. My point is that we should not be adding our own opinions, and should only be saying what the sources actually say. "Can lead to suicide" is very different to "can increase the risk of suicide" as one attributes blame, removes neutrality and doesn't match the sources.
 * Also, with respect to the oranges making people explode - in that situation, you should be writing it in the orange article, but not the Del Monte article - unless the sources specifically are attributing the exploding oranges to Del Monte. Do you see the difference?  WormTT   ·  (talk) 13:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i see it, but the WP:Coatrack article doesn't actually rule this out.
 * Shall we try and find a suitable wording and position?
 * And Del Monte oranges certainly do not make people explode...as far as i'm aware =P  J e n o v a  20 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you make a suggestion here, and I'll fiddle with it when you're done ;)  WormTT   ·  (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 * "Homosexuals Anonymous along with other conversion therapy groups has been criticized because it is inconsistent with the mainstream view that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and that such attempts can actually cause harm, including depression, drug abuse and suicide. It is also documented by Exodus International's leader, Alan Chambers, sometimes referred to as the "World's Top "Ex-Gay" Leader" that it is not possible to change sexual orientation and only suppression of homosexual attractions is possible in some cases and not a cure for them."
 * That's a subtle change to the "and" problem and i'm also trying to keep it simple since it's on the article about conversion therapy aswell.
 * Your thoughts?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it, assuming you can find out who the person is and source it. I think that should go in the criticism section though, rather than the lead.  WormTT   ·  (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 * "Homosexuals Anonymous along with other conversion therapy groups has been criticized because it is inconsistent with the mainstream view that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and that such attempts can actually cause harm, including depression, drug abuse and suicide. It is also documented by Exodus International's leader, Alan Chambers, sometimes referred to as the "World's Top "Ex-Gay" Leader" that it is not possible to change sexual orientation and only suppression of homosexual attractions is possible and not a cure."
 * What do you think?
 * http://instinctmagazine.com/tag=exodus-international
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Having thought about it a bit more, I'm not keen on referring to Alan Chambers as the world's top ex-gay leader. I would suggest changing that to "president of Exodus International, the world's largest Ex-Gay organisation". That means I'd suggest adding two bits.
 * To the lead: ... no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[7] Critics of these organisations explain the methods can lead to depression and suicide [Source]
 * To the general criticism section: Aside from this, ... no evidence that such a change is possible.[7]Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, the world's largest Ex-Gay organisation has confirmed that it is not possible to change sexual orientation, only suppress homosexual attractions.[Source] Critics of these organisations go on to explain that the methods are linked to depression, drug use and suicide [Source]
 * What do you think? You just need to find the sources. Try to use the cite template if you can, similar to other sources in the document.  WormTT   ·  (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reworded to:
 * To the lead: ... no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[7] Critics of these organisations explain the methods used can lead to depression and suicide and include in some cases the use of electric shocks, brainwashing, hypnotism or chemical castration [Source(s)]
 * To the general criticism section: Aside from this, ... no evidence that such a change is possible and evidence that they can in fact be harmful and dangerous.[7]Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, the world's largest Ex-Gay organisation has confirmed that it is not possible to change sexual orientation, only suppress homosexual attractions.[Source] Critics of these organisations argue that the methods reinforce discrimination, stereotypes of how heterosexual people should act and are linked to depression, drug abuse and suicide [Source].

What do you think of this if i get the sources?  J e n o v a  20 10:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy with the general area, not with the lead. I've seen nothing to say that this company uses those methods and we really shouldn't be talking about other company's methods within this article. Especially since not in the lead since it isn't covered elsewhere in the article.  WormTT   ·  (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I've added some reworded bits (being bold and taking your advice into consideration).
 * Can you let me know what you think?
 * Still looking for refs for this:
 * Critics of conversion therapy and organisations using it argue that the methods used reinforce discrimination, stereotypes of how heterosexual people should act, are linked to depression, drug abuse and suicide, and can include the use of electric shocks, brainwashing, hypnotism or chemical castration[Source].
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the ref that you moved back, and used the citation template for the other one. Do you fancy trying to use the citation template for the bit in the lead? We don't want bare urls in this article, since it seems to be referenced quite well (nearly became a good article)  WormTT   ·  (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm multitasking and rushing, which is why this has taken 2 days so far so i wouldn't be able to do that without learning how again, which is difficult when i'm being distracted constantly.
 * Found 2 of the sources for the other part so far already.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no deadline, it doesn't have to go into the article until you have time to get it in right ;)  WormTT   ·  (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's also a section with "citation needed" in the article but i can't make sense of it.
 * I would like to clean that up if possible.
 * I may not agree with these ex-gay-for-profit cults but i would like to clean the article if i am able.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 * "Conversion therapy techniques include aversive treatments, masturbatory reconditioning (a form of covert sensitization), visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure."[16] HA practices are based on the last of these techniques.[citation needed]"
 * I could merge it with the section i have here since they're both similar?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Citation needed is because the article states that HA uses spiritual interventions and none of the other techniques. I think we need source for that.  WormTT   ·  (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So what is reference 16?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A reference for general conversion therapy techniques, I don't believe it mentions HA specifically. I don't have access to it though. WormTT  ·  (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think i'm misinterpreting but it looks like they practice "prayer and group support and pressure.", which would certainly include spiritual intervention.
 * That's prayer right? In which case there is already a citation for this somewhere in the article?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 * http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201107/making-gay-people-straight-is-it-possible-praycounsel-the-gay
 * Job done right?  J e n o v a  20 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about HA, not conversion therapy. In fact the link to CV is very tenuous in the first place. In fact having CV in this article at all is a violation of WP:UNDUE. If CV is going to be in the article, we cannot elaborate on characteristics of CV. That is WP:COATRACK. In order to include mention of suicide, we need a source that states that HA causes suicide. Otherwise we are dealing with WP:SYNTH. – Lionel (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with that, I've seen a number of sources - the one directly above your comment for one - which state that HA practice a form of conversion therapy (I am assuming you mean conversion therapy by the acronym CV). As such, it is not UNDUE to include information about CV, especially not the general criticisms. I agree that we should be careful about COATRACK, which is why I reverted out in the first place, but I am happy that the content is neutrally worded, well sourced and appropriate for the article.  WormTT   ·  (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about a religious funded organization trying to turn gay people straight through prayer.
 * That is conversion therapy, it is very relevant and WP:Coatrack does allow it.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Worm, Lasala in Psych Today does not say that HA uses conversion therapy. He says that "licensed mental health professionals" practice CV. As I said before the connection between HA and CV is tenuous. – Lionel (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "This approach is characterized by stressing that a person must renounce homosexuality to be a Christian"
 * Changing aspects of behaviour to become a normal christian? Conversion therapy
 * You want to argue over aspects like this Lionelt i suggest you read the article. Even just the first paragraph
 * It states that HA actually use prayer to pray away the gay and there are many references to it, including the 12/14 step people to stop people from being gay (again that's conversion therapy).
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 20:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems as though some may want to deny the major scientific consensus regarding the unethical nature of such groups as HA. But, this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement to make conversion therapy look better. Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 14:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They can deny it all they want but it's got to be neutral and it's got to be referenced reliably.
 * I'm not gonna just sit here and let an article on something i disagree with be used as a vehicle to push an anti-gay agenda by right wing religionists.
 * Some of these edits on these articles are downright despicable  J e n o v a  20 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe tag
I am rather new to this article and after having read it, find it to be quite supportive of the accepted scientific findings re: homosexuality. I don't see any major FRINGE concerns. HA certainly is attempting something that accepted science advocates do not advocate. The article makes this clear, IMO. I have removed the FRINGE tag, but am not opposed to a revert if others feel it is still necessary. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Donald was right to remove the Fringe tag: the conversion therapy section frames the HA claims in the context of mainstream science, and I don't see how it could be taken that HA's ideas are being endorsed. KoshVorlon, you should have contested Donald's edit rather than reverting it. You need to spell out what you think is wrong with the article: what would it look like if it gave appropriate weight?

 * Lsufalcon: please Assume Good Faith. The drive to put certain words in quotation marks was because of the need to prevent the neutral encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia from endorsing fringe theories. It's not factual or appropriate to accuse other editors thus: "you so strongly disagree with HA you want to enstill them as "ridiculous" (scare tactic)." (and what was "enstill" supposed to be?) MartinPoulter (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * This article is loaded with hostility towards its subject and badly needs to be fixed to impart a neutral tone. The fringe tag is spot-on.  Belchfire (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. After reading other editors' comments, I understand now why the Fringe Tag has probably been incorrectly applied here. I stand by my earlier remarks regarding hostile language and non-neutral tone. Belchfire (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:WEIGHT. They're doing something mainstream science regards as witchcraft and so wherever possible scientific evidence is offered to show it as such. Just like Herbal medicine and techniques would feature nothing on potential health benefits without the mainstream opinion for a fear of showing bias. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not compliant with WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. Belchfire (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So because it reflects a mainstream academic view of the topic, the article violates FRINGE? That makes no sense. Unless you specify what sources are being ignored or unfairly summarised, this looks like a POV-pushing campaign rather than trying to apply neutrality. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the fringe tag does not appear to be warranted. Perhaps if you could identify the section in which fringe theories are presented as more notable than they really are? VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead links are not a good reason to remove references
A plea to User:Belchfire: the Link rot policy says "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." That seems pretty clear. Please follow the actual policy and not what you think the policy should be. MartinPoulter (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks
This edit reverted a removal of quotation marks from several terms and phrases. Per MOS:BADEMPHASIS, I think it would be editorially favorable to remove the quotation marks and instead make clear in the text (as was already the case in some of the locations) that the terms are not broadly recognized by the mainstream. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously BADEMPHASIS applies and quotation marks are prohibited by the guideline. Endorse removal.– Lionel (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well "sexual brokenness" and "healed" should be quoted as it's the opinion of HA and the rest about it being junk is in the conversion therapy article. If these two aren't linked then it wouldn't be so neutral since Wikipedia doesn't recognise "sexual brokenness" and science doesn't recognise anything here that could be "healed". Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have never read a Wikipedia article where, while explaining what the subject believes, it was necessary to use quotes when the terms are blatantly obvious. It is clearly under MOS:BADEMPHASIS.

Directly from the Wiki Rules: Quotation marks for emphasis of a single word or phrase, or scare quotes, are discouraged. Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name "Aaron" instead of the spelling he used during his life.

Thanks Lsufalcon (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Firstly, stop edit warring. Secondly, WP:BADEMPHASIS has exceptions. Lastly, consensus is not a vote - you need firm consensus amongst editors to implement your change. I oppose the proposed change. --Scientiom (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondly, WP:BADEMPHASIS has exceptions. Where? VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sciention, please explain your reasonings for those sentences to remain quoted. The only reason I can see that you would want them to remain quoted is that you so strongly disagree with HA you want to enstill them as "ridiculous" (scare tactic). Lsufalcon (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because those words/phrases should not be in Wikipedia's voice - there are exceptions to WP:BADEMPHASIS. -Scientiom (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with that interpretation after reading. I oppose your changes also Lsufalcon ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I already knew you opposed, Jenova. You were opposed before and you are opposed now. I'm not the *only* one who can see it. Whether you like it or not, BADEMPHASIS is in play here, and there is no need to put those words in quotes. For instance:

"HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokenness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ."

What is the point of quotes here? Really. They are silly. If you are implying every Wikipedia article show quotes for what the topic is explaining, then you have the wrong concept of an encyclopedia article. This is not an exception to the BADEMPHASIS rule. Trying to highlight certain words to stand out for an ulterior motive is exactly what bias is.

"HA regards homosexual orientation as sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ."

The latter is much easier to read, and does not signify Wikipedia endorsing anything. It just makes sense. I approve of the changes. Lsufalcon (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about this compromise solution:

HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." -- В и к и  T   14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the rest of the changes? --Scientiom (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lede, i prefer your wording Wikiwind. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiwind, I support his changes (over what we had before). Lsufalcon (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. That's one problem solved. What about the next bit then Scientiom? Also why was the article tagged about fringe theories but no discussion started? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like wikilink to redirect Ex-gay, since we don't have article "Ex-gay", only "Ex-gay movement". So instead of “Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) is an ex-gay group...”, we should say: “Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) is an ex-gay group...” Small change but necessary.-- В и к и  T   15:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that "ex-gay" should be quotation marks considering that it is a made-up word. --Scientiom (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's certainly disputed and even HA admit they can't cure gays so therefore there's no reliable proof of "ex-gays" anyway. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no opinion about quotation marks, but this article is about fringe group, so mainstream scientific view must be made clear per WP:FRINGE: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. -- В и к и  T   15:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well mainstream science in every(?) developed country certainly treats it as lunacy and it has no scientific support ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One does not follow the other. I do not think anyone here is claiming that HA's therapies are supported by the mainstream. That does not mean that terms such as ex-gay need to be surrounded by quotation marks. Compare, for example, with the description at astrology - the belief system is described without endorsement or mischaracterization as science, but the quotation marks are reserved for quotes. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why it is quotation marks is because it is a made up word which can mislead readers if not clearly shown to be such. --Scientiom (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

By made up word you mean a word for a concept, the existence of which is not supported by science, correct? Not unlike luminiferous aether or humours? What basis in policy or style guides can you cite that scare quotes are the correct way of dealing with such terms? VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a made-up word by any reasonable definition. The phrase sexual brokenness consists of two perfectly legitimate English words found in any standard dictionary.  A made-up word would be something like "santorum" or "scarcasm".  The concept might be an idea that has been discredited, but the article should make that clear without scare quotes.  Lionel is correct, this is a clear case of BADEMPHASIS and it should be fixed. Belchfire (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, little did I know how ignorant I was in trying to fix this article. Regardless of what revisions are being done by editors in an effort to neutralize the tone and bias on this page, certain types of people with certain agendas on Wikipedia will put forth every considerable effort to overturn them out of sheer personal hatred for the group HA. User "Scientiom" even reported me to a Wiki mod and got me suspended for 24 hours because he was so upset about my deletion of the scare quotes. Now THAT is truly sad. This article is and has always been incredibly and obviously biased against the group HA, from the rhetoric, to the syntax, to the sources and references. I noticed that when I first read it, and tried to make a minor adjustment on quotes. I honestly could care less what happens to this article now. Lsufalcon (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The editors who support using quotes have not provided an policy justification to support their position. BADEMPHASIS is a guideline. To cavalierly declare "BADEMPHASIS has exceptions" when the policy says no such thing is tendentious. Tendentious editing is disruptive and will not be tolerated. If you have a genuine, official policy to cite let's hear it. Otherwise if this disruption continues I'll have to escalate this to the appropriate noticeboard.– Lionel (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The subject matter tends to bring out strong emotions in people, which I think is why people are having trouble following the MOS in this particular case. Maybe a RFC would be helpful in getting some objective, experienced opinions? VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. Belchfire (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To me this appears to be more of a behaviorial issue than a content dispute. This adamant refusal to acknowledge our guidelines is an extreme instance of WP:IDHT. Combined with the edit warring and tendentious editing, perhaps this disruption should be brought to WP:ANI. – Lionel (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you said it yourself - WP:BADEMPHASIS is a *guideline*, not a *policy* - and there are indeed exceptions as noted at the top of guideline page: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". --Scientiom (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see only a single exception for the acceptable use of quotation marks for emphasis, and it clearly doesn't cover this situation. Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. This is followed by an example of using quotation marks to delineate a spelling error from the rest of the article content.  That is clearly not how quotation marks are being used here.  So, please explain what justification are you claiming for this exception?  How does it fit into policy?  How is this not an instance of scare quotes? Belchfire (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientom, the words you bolded above link from the MOS to WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. IAR represents a core value that is treasured to many editors, but from the discussion above it is obvious that it is possible (even easy) to present these terms without scare quotes. So rather than continuing to edit war in the article, how about rephrasing the parts that concern you in a way that both meets the style guide and that you can believe is more neutral? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and IAR should be applied if it would help in ensuring that readers do not get a wrong impression when reading an article. Leaving that aside, as for your suggestion (by the way, I'm not edit-warring - any reverts I do will only be to maintain the version as it has been been (i.e. the stable version) while discussions are ongoing, as it must be per policy), I would be more than happy to do so - would you like to point out the the areas which we should work towards rephrasing? --Scientiom (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the stable version nomination per WP:Stable versions? Or is this just a canard you are using to continue reverting good faith edits? Belchfire (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all maybe you should assume good faith - the stable version is the version before any controversial edits which other editors requested to be discussed on the talk page - if a controversial edit is made and reverted then the editor trying to make the controversial change must receive consensus to implement their change on the talk page. See WP:BRD. --Scientiom (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy justification, or not? The phrase "stable version" does not appear at WP:BRD, so unless you have some other policy in mind, it's difficult not to conclude that "stable version" is an imaginary construct you have devised to justify edit-warring.  Belchfire (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I expanded a one-word quote that could be confused with a scare quote, and removed the term "ex-gay" altogether from the first sentence of the lede because it was adequately covered in the criticism section and seemed to not add much to the first line of the article. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
From above - Belchfire notes that the article is not compliant with WP:NPOV, specifically the sub section WP:WEIGHT. Can you elaborate? What portion of these policies, and what parts of the article? Mainstream sources are pretty ubiquitous in their lack of support for conversion therapy, so a neutral article should identify those therapies as fringe. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Quite frankly, the entire article needs to be re-written by somebody with no ax to grind. Short of that, the tone of the article would be greatly helped by excising the notion that HA is "conversion therapy" (a proposition that is only supported by a single, biased source), and then removing all of the different conclusions that inflow from the initial faulty hypothesis.  So, shorter answer... the entire article fails NPOV, and the WEIGHT issue is that most of the article relies on Douglas Haldeman's assertion that HA consists of "conversion therapy".  Belchfire (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the section Conversion Therapy--why is it here?, multiple reliable sources are available that use HA as an example of an organization that practices conversion therapy. It appears that you dislike the term because "therapy" brings a connotation of respectability, but this is your interpretation only. We use reliable sources instead of falling back on our emotions precisely because it helps our writing to be impartial. VQuakr (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy--why is it here?
This article is not about CT. Just because HA employs CT does not justify including a lengthy section. HA also believes that homosexuality is healed through faith in Jesus. Does that mean we should add a section on salvation? Christian teachings on homosexuality? Leviticus? No. Standard practice is to create a wikilink--not an entire section. The sources in this section are general and do not even mention HA. In order to keep this type of content we must specifically show how CT is incorporated in the HA program. Does HA use aversive treatments? Masturbatory reconditioning? The sources are silent on this. These treatments cannot be mentioned unless HA in fact uses them. And why is Alan Chambers in here? What does he have to do with HA? This section is a textbook WP:COATRACK and must be removed. – Lionel (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It's a religious program, so I question the accuracy of calling it "therapy" at all. If there are no doctors or mental health professionals involved, how can be be called therapy?  The theory that HA is "conversion therapy" is only supported by one source - a book by Douglas C. Haldeman, who is a psychologist in Seattle with a practice that specializes in LGBT advocacy.  Not exactly a neutral, dispassionate voice.  Belchfire (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * HA is frequently cited as an example of conversion therapy; if you are unhappy with the current source there are many others to pick from. Sorry if you find the term intentionally misleading, but the common name of conversion therapy is just that.
 * However, the term may be unfamiliar to many readers, so a brief description is probably appropriate. The existing paragraph just needs to be pared down and probably does not need its own section. VQuakr (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Frequently cited? I just did a cursory check, and I'm not convinced.  Googling for "homosexuals anonymous" and "conversion therapy" turns up this article, a website associate with Dr. Haldeman, and a bunch of other stuff that can most kindly be described as less than solid.  Since you say this is such a frequent juxtaposition, why don't you (VQuakr) see if you can come up with some alternate sources, preferably sources that are a little more neutral than what we have now?  I'm beginning to think that Dr. Haldeman may be impeachable as a reliable source, and if that's the case then big chunks of this article are going to unravel.  But let's see what you can come up with.  Belchfire (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a large number of abstracts on Google scholar that appear to treat HA as not just an example of conversion therapy, but a leading example. I don't have a good journal access at the moment though. You could look at Textbook of homosexuality and mental health by Cabaj and Stein; True Nature: A Theory of Sexual Attraction by Kauth; or Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences by Garnets and Kimmel if you wanted book examples though. From the last of those: "Fundamentalist Christian groups, such as Homosexuals Anonymous... are the most visible purveyors of conversion therapy." (689). VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * HA admits they try to change the sexuality of patients. That's conversion/reparative therapy and only a fool would dispute this after reading into the topic and looking at the sources. Lionelt, you already tried this once and failed, getting back-up does not change the fact that removal of conversion therapy is censorship and a clear violation of WP:Weight, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT here. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * HA's program doesn't match the definition of conversion therapy found here on Wikipedia. Perhaps somebody needs to expand that article?  It is NOT automatically "conversion therapy" simply because it seeks to alter a person's sexual orientation.  According to our own article, conversion therapy involves, you know, a therapist.  As I've already pointed out, HA doesn't involve therapists; it is primarily a religious program.  There is a difference.  Belchfire (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Interesting that you did not address the WP:COATRACK concern, and rattled off policies which are irrelevant. Wait: since only 1 source actually connects HA and CT, WP:WEIGHT actually supports exclusion!!!! It appears your understanding of WP:WEIGHT is faulty. Anyway, thanks for giving me that one. Is there a reason you prefer not to tackle the COATRACK problem? Regarding "tried this once", you should familiarize yourself with WP:CCC. In fact, 3 editors are in favor of eliminating/reducing the section. And just like that: consensus has changed. – Lionel (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is valid and sourced. And consensus is not a vote. --Scientiom (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * So far, it's a single source that is biased. Can we do better?  Belchfire (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * HA admit they use conversion therapy Lionel, are you pretending they don't? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Halderman said that they use CT---not HA. And I concede that Halderman wrote that. Now: will you offer an argument as to how this section is not a WP:COATRACK? – Lionel (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but will you in return read it, especially this part:
 * "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. However, a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE" ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be satisfied just if those who support the supposition that HA=CT could come up with a couple more non-biased, scholarly sources that support the claim. Dr. Haldeman is clearly a LGBT advocate, so he is not a reliable source and should be discounted. Where are the public health authorities on this? What have national-level organizations said? Since this information is supposedly "frequently cited", coming up with a better citation should be a slam-dunk. Belchfire (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "LGBT advocate?" - that's not a bias, although we can draw a few conclusions from your wording there. Did you notice PHD in big letters on the link you provided while disputing his reliability in his specialised field of expertise? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is bias. Unquestionably.  "PhD" means he is knowledgeable.  It doesn't mean he is objective, and in this case Haldeman is clearly not an objective source.  His entire career is associated with LGBT issues.  We need a source with a more disinterested POV.  Since the point of contention has been "frequently cited", why this reliance on Haldeman's book?  Why not just roll out a citation from somebody who doesn't have a dog in the hunt? Belchfire (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Biased sources are allowed. However if Halderman is kept, it is our convention to attribute content derived from sources such as this. Thus the text should read: "According to Halderman..." But the larger problem is that based on a passing mention in this single biased source, a lengthy section about CT has been added to the article. None of the sources in this long section mention HA. The brief mention by Halderman is used as a hangar, or "coatrack", upon which to "hang" this large section which has no direct connection to the article subject. The subject of this article is HA: not conversion therapy. Additionally, as Jenova inadvertently brought to my attention, the CT section fails WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT requires that content reflect the preponderence of coverage in reliable sources. And the coverage of Homosexuals Anon+Conversion Therapy is practically nonexistent. Right now the article greatly exaggerates the coverage of CT in WP:RS as it relates to Homosexuals Anon. This inbalance must be correctd by deleting the section. – Lionel (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing at all wrong with saying something like "Dr. Doug Haldeman says that HA is conversion therapy..." and then from that point developing some of the implications of that assertion. That's very different from what we have now, with the article stating as unequivocal fact that HA is conversion therapy in the opening sentence.  As to the current section on CT, if we are using sources that do not mention HA specifically, they are not relevant and they have to go. Belchfire (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After comparing the referenced sources against the claims make in the article content, I can only conclude that the CT section in totally unsalvageable. The very first sentence ("Conversion therapy is defined by the American Psychological Association as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation, ") is simply false - the source doesn't say that.  The next clause ("whilst the American Psychiatric Association defines it as a type of psychiatric treatment "based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.'") is wholly irrelevant, because nobody is credibly claiming that HA is "psychiatric treatment".  Another segment ("Conversion therapy techniques include aversive treatments, masturbatory reconditioning (a form of covert sensitization), visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure." HA practices are based on the last of these techniques.") is simply preposterous, because now we are trying to say that "prayer and group support and pressure" is to be taken seriously as psychiatric treatment.  What follows - mainly concerning psychological harm that may be done by CT - is probably valid, but definitely NOT in the context of presenting HA as a form of therapy, which cannot credibly be claimed without overlooking the bogus logic that I just pointed out.  Again, this section has to go, or else it has to be completely re-worked.  Belchfire (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll challenge removal of the section since it is very relevant and i haven't had time to yet find more references and probably won't until sunday afternoon. If at that time there have been sweeping and undiscussed changes i'll be combing through them and i have a feeling i'll end up challenging and restoring a lot of it and bringing this up with others. Also Belchfire it's not a good idea to make sweeping changes to the article while discussion is ongoing and being gay or being an LGBT activist is not a bias. We're talking about an organization that tries to "cure" gay people and sources from that side our biased? You have a serious problem with bias yourself there to believe that and have no policy to back up your request to not use sources from any LGBT or people who can be accused of activism. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire says above "The very first sentence ("Conversion therapy is defined by the American Psychological Association as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation, ") is simply false - the source doesn't say that." The source says "Therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy)..." So Belchfire is completely wrong here: through carelessness or otherwise, the source has been misrepresented. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Nice try, but if you're going to quibble over what the source says, don't cherry-pick parts of sentences. What it actually say is: "'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'"It looks to me like you are the one misrepresenting the source. Note the use of the word "sometimes" (omitted from the article).  Note that this is a psychological association talking about "therapy", and consider that the article is about religious indoctrination.  Using this source to try to say HA = CT is pure synthesis, and inaccurate. Belchfire (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the word "sometimes" has that effect? You're drawing a distinction between "'conversion therapy' is a term used for therapy to change sexual orientation", which you regard as unsupported by the source, and "'conversion therapy' is a term sometimes used for therapy to change sexual orientation". MartinPoulter (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For that particular statement, I'm pointing out two things: 1. The statement (taken in its entirety) wasn't intended to define conversion therapy - the sentence was written for a different purpose, and 2. The word "sometimes" clearly tells us that even the APA does not consider every attempt to alter a person's sexual orientation to be conversion therapy. When you posted only a fragment of the sentence, you obscured that the sentence wasn't written to be a definition and shouldn't be construed to be a definition. Belchfire (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I note Belchfire's edit summary "You are so busted"(!) referring to the accusation that I cherry-picked a quote to misrepresent the source, but also note that I included the word "sometimes" (the crucial word which Belchfire seems to think reverses the meaning of the sentence) in my quote. This is making less and less sense. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire says above "Another segment [...] is simply preposterous, because now we are trying to say that "prayer and group support and pressure" is to be taken seriously as psychiatric treatment." and yet the cited source specifically refers to ex-gay Christian ministries and specifically to HA, as you can see further up this talk page. It's not claimed to be psychiatric therapy: that's a straw man. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's a straw man is simply wrong. Just look at what the article currently says: "'Conversion therapy is defined by the American Psychological Association as therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation, whilst the American Psychiatric Association defines it as a type of psychiatric treatment 'based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.''"So our article attempts to say HA (based on religion) is conversion therapy (a form of psychotherapy), and then points to a source that says conversion therapy is defined as a type of psychiatric treatment. We are telling the reader that A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C. It's an obvious logical fallacy, even if there isn't a problem with the sources. And definitely not a straw man. Belchfire (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Having looked over the article and source, I find I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, the source in question is clearly an appropriate one from an established researcher in the field which directly treats the subject matter (nor is his position with regard to conversion therapy a unique one in psychological/psychiatric literature).  As it is a valid source, I see no reason to remove it because it seems inaccurate or strikes a chord of bias in one particular editor (or even a number of contributors); that's clearly not in keeping with policy.  We aren't her to asses the claims of sources, we simply report them.  If Belchfire knows of acceptable independent resources which refute the claim that HA engages in conversion therapy, he is welcome to cite them and present the debate in the article, but the reference should not be removed simply because he objects to it -- even if he feels it's a matter of veracity.  Again, policy is pretty clear on this.   All of that being said, I do have caveats -- this article is about Homosexuals Anonymous and not Conversion Therapy in general and therefore the last section of the page devoted to Conversion Therapy may be inappropriately long - persons wishing to explore the concept and practice can always read the article we have on the subject matter and it's current representation in this article may be a WP:Weight issue.   However, to some extent conversion therapy and similar practices will need to be referenced in other sections -- The "Effectiveness" and "Criticism" section in particular -- and should not be excised entirely.   I do not, however, believe that the following clause belongs in the lede: "against the scientific view that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and that such attempts can be harmful."  Again, this can be inferred from our information located at Conversion therapy.  There's not really much debate in the scientific community as to essential correctness of the claim being made, but this is not the ideal place for its discussion, and I can see how the comment, located in that context, could be seen as having a biasing effect against the group (again, whatever the veracity of the claim). Snow (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, those who are interested in the subject matter should note that there is a minority but growing trend amongst cognitive scientists and other researchers in this area to classify sexuality as a "continuum" or "spectrum"; that is to say that sexuality is innate (and usually unchangeable) but, like most nativistic features of the mind, it may have some wiggle-room within those constraints which allow some persons to slide from one preference to another over the course of their lives. Though it should also be noted that even proponents of these views amognst researchers still tend to fully dismiss Conversion Therapy as ineffective and not based on sound scientific or psychiatric practice.   None of which is particularly germane to the present article, of course, but I put it out there for those editing in this area. I'll supply some sources in this vein when I get a chance. Snow (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snow that the conversion therapy section violates WP:WEIGHT (thanks again Jenova) and should be substantially reduced; first preference being removal. Clear consensus is to substantially reduce the section. – Lionel (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's stay with "substantially reduced". Dr. Haldeman's theories do deserve at least a passing mention, just not in the opening sentence and not presented as universally accepted truth.  Let's look for a balance. Belchfire (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing
Editors should be apprised that this article has been canvassed at WP:LGBT. Jenova wrote: The suggestion that WikiProject Catholocism (sic) is coordinating a censorship attack at this article is preposterous. Of the 3 editors Jenova falsely accused, I am the only member of WP:CATHOLIC. – Lionel (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Placing a note regarding the situation on the WikiProject discussion is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 02:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Depends on the notice. Merely posting a heads-up is fine, if it carries a neutral tone.  However: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is not allowed.  Campaigning is further defined as "an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent."  The assertion that editors are attempting to "censor information" is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, not to mention WP:AGF. Belchfire (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It was more of an inference, rather than an assertion, given the history with this article. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * LOL! Belchfire (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * :D ! – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 03:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What i said could have been better worded but it's not inaccurate. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we pretend it is accurate, it's still a policy violation. Have you self-reverted it yet?  That would be the honorable thing to do.   Belchfire (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion re California law
Re this reversion, this was a drive-by edit for me, but I want to point out that the quote fails a Google Books text search in the textbook cited in its support. That literal text is present in the California law for which the reversion removed the cite I had added. I was in the process of making a followup edit to move the quote and the book cite inside the note which the reverted edit had added, citing both the law and the book in support in that note, but my followup edit had an edit conflict with your reversion. I'll add a fv tag to the Ref for the book cite; regular editors of this page can sort out how to fix that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead
This sentence in the lead is verified by two sources: These practices are cautioned against by mainstream scientific organizations, which hold that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and that such attempts can be harmful. However, the citations listed only verify the claim that "there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed". I propose there be a separate verification of "that such attempts can be harmful" or that the citation marker be moved to more closely indicate its intent. Also, there appears to be nothing verifying that attempting to change sexual orientation can be harmful. What should be done here? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The simplest solution is to cite it as i have just done. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of Quotes in Lead
The quoted phrases in the lead are misleading and detract from the readability of the text. If these are indeed quotes, I could not find them in the cited source (try finding "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." in [7]). If they are being used to say something is so-called, then what is subjective about "renouncing homosexuality"? If you look up renounce in the dictionary, that is exactly what they are asking people to do. What should be done here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 * They are quotes because they are from the organisation themselves and are magical claims of curing gay people of being. If they were not in quotes then they would be in Wikipedia's voice and violate WP:Weight, thus having to be removed completely. All organizations tend to have a mission statement or similar information and notable quotes. "Renouncing homosexuality" is a perfect example - it is their words, not ours. Renouncing is very controversial in this case since sexuality is not an addiction or a habit you can "renounce" and HA leaders themselves admit that homosexuality is incurable. The organization only live on because people and churches still ignore that and fund them anyway. If i missed anything there then let me know. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 * You missed any mention of the missing quote, "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." I don't think anything about the word renounce suggests that homosexuality is a habit. Can you clarify? My point was that it should be in Wikipedia's voice as there's nothing misleading about describing what they urge people to do. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Sexual brokenness" is a quote, so we do not put it in Wikipedia's voice. And the part about healing with Jesus is not a scientific or the mainstream view, so it does not go in Wikipedia's voice as it would violate WP:Weight. Wikipedia uses science and reliable sources for articles. Conservapedia is the one that uses the Bible and quotes from magical and mythical creatures. Did i get it all? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Right, so if "sexual brokenness" is a quote, don't you think the quote should be reined in a little so as not to mislead and/or make the paragraph unreadable? The part about healing through faith in Jesus is not scientific, but the sentence starts with "HA regards sexuality as". I don't think anybody would confuse this with Wikipedia's voice. You did not clarify what you believe constitutes weight the phrase "renounce homosexuality". <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * One more thing. Regarding the voice issue, I think you might be referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
 * You'll note that the "HA regards sexuality as..." sentence is practically identical to "genocide has been described by John X as..." in the section titled "Explanation of the Neutral Point of View". They do not recommend that half of the sentence is quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * They're still quotes after that section, hence the speech marks. With a topic like this making such outlandish claims we have to be careful to explain those without putting it in Wikipedia's voice. And as you can see there are multiple policies to adhere to with something like this. So we must carefully explain what the company does without making it seem factual, as the citations from the company themselves cannot be used for that. WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:Reliable...there's a few to be aware of. The fact of the matter is that we cannot put these things into Wikipedia's voice, but we must explain what the company does. So we're at the situations where there's a few quotes. They're not causing harm and there's not many of them though. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Plus, 22 words is a short sentence, not half of the lede. That's how much is quoted, and i'm sure even the Born This Way Foundation features more than that...Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I've looked over the section and I think that the scare quotes are a bit misleading. The sentance that causes the most concern is
 * In line with HA's view of Christian teaching, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ."[7] This approach is characterized by urging a person to "renounce homosexuality" and "become a heterosexual Christian."[8]
 * Now "the universal creation norm" is fine, but scarequoting "sexual brokennes..." indicates a direct quote, not a scarequote. Additionally there isn't any real fear of saying it in wikipedia's voice, or give the ideas some form of validity outside the source since the ideas are clearly identified as HA's view.  I think we should retain "the universal creation norm" and unquote the rest of that sentence.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I would take issue with unquoting "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." since it is clear baloney to suggest in Wikipedia's voice that you can cure gay with prayer. A claim disputed by every mainstream scientific organisation worth mentioning. I welcome your discussion here though as it can only help the situation. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I am confused as to how you believe that stating:
 * HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ.

will somehow give legitimacy to HA's view by stating it in "wikipedia's voice." This sentence very clearly states that this is HA's view, and scareqotes are only used, per wikipedia's manual of style, when the speaker is trying to be either ironic or use the scarequoted word in a manor different from the traditional usage.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Ah, i see from your example that i have misunderstood. Thank you for clearing that up. I support your recommendation fully ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * ok glad we can see vis a vis. Ill take care of the section.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank-you, Coffeepusher. The lead no longer looks like a quoted mess, which is what my initial edit was trying to achieve. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

quotes from HA in lede
the following sentence is currently under dispute for reasons I am unclear of:
 * HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ.

Could you please explain your removal of a cited sentence which briefly lays out the views of the subject of the article?Coffeepusher (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is to be retained, then it should be in quotes as there was a solid discussion on this as noted on DRN by the closing reviewer. --Scientiom (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * please see discussion above.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A discussion barely attented by only 3 editors is not consensus, there was already solid consensus on this as noted on DRN. --Scientiom (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, it seems that the sources presented are not even linked to this group! In which case the paragraph must be removed. We cannot say "HA regards.." when that's not what the sources say. --Scientiom (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Where does the sources not say that? I am currently reading "and homosexuals anonymous..." in the citation.  That's how secondary sources work, they aren't primary they are secondary and talk about the group.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the sentences that have evolved into the current content - here is the version as I left it in 2011. Note that quotes were only on "sexual brokenness" (supported by the Jones source) and not the rest of the phrase. I note that some of the references I used have since gone and the sentences redrafted. What I wrote as a lede paragraph was:
 * Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) is an ex-gay group which practices conversion therapy[2] and describes itself as "a fellowship of men and women, who through their common emotional experience, have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality."[3] HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ.[4] In common with other Christian fundamentalist groups, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm".[5][2][4] This approach has been criticized for stressing that a person must renounce homosexuality to be a Christian,[6] and because it is inconsistent with the mainstream view that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[7]

I suggest that you might re-work this older version and its references to come to a consensus, as I'm not sure the current version is as accurate as the original. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the above paragraph should be reinstated to replace the current sentence. it is not only well referenced, but lays out the exact belief system of HA.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * although I would replace "mainstream view" with "scientific consensus" in the last line, but that is one woman's opinion.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see your point but to me "mainstream view" is preferable given the phrase "scientific evidence" is a few words later.  What I really dislike is the current lede paragraph which I think is more suited to a second paragraph.  How about...

Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) is an ex-gay group which practices conversion therapy[2] and describes itself as "a fellowship of men and women, who through their common emotional experience, have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality."[3] HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ.[4] In common with other Christian fundamentalist groups, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm".[5][2][4] This approach has been criticized for stressing that a person must renounce homosexuality to be a Christian,[6] and because it is inconsistent with the mainstream view that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[7] refs from this version

''Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific method which attempts to change the sexual orientation of homosexual or bisexual clients.[2][3] The professional consensus amongst mainstream scientific organizations is that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. Consequently, they warn against attempts to "cure" people of non-heterosexual sexual orientations because such treatments are medically unsupported and unjustified, and because they represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of clients.[4][5][6]'' refs from current draft

 * I think this sequence is preferable, first describing HA in its own words before the reasons conversion therapy is unsupported. They could even be made a single paragraph.  Thoughts?  EdChem (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Very well written draft. Two suggestions: Perhaps we should quote from the sources more directly so that no controversial phrases appear to be in Wikipedia's voice, and secondly I do think that 'mainstream' may be unnecessary to mention. I'd support the draft with slight amendments, but do feel free go ahead and put it in. --Scientiom (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick question. What are we suggesting to replace?  I would like this to replace the first two paragraphs of the Lede (as it covers similar content) but keep the third paragraph about the founding of HA.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, the third paragraph is needed and should be retained, in my view. EdChem (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) quick question. What wikipedia standard says anything about "wikipedia's voice"? This week is literally the first time I have encountered people citing that standard without any reference to the standard.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one place you can find it is in WP:YESPOV, a section of WP:NPOV. EdChem (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I seriously have never heard people talk about things being "in wikipedia's voice" before...and I edit Scientology articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Scientiom, is there a specific passage that you would like to be a direct quote. Based on the section that EdChem has given us it appears that everything is properly attributed to the point that no mistake will be made as to who is endorsing which statements. Is there a specific revision you would like to request?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I made the change. I inserted two wikilinks and changed "...and because they represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of clients" to "...and because they represent a serious threat to the mental health and well-being of clients" as I felt that was more in line with what the sources were saying.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was told to see talk regarding my edit. The statement HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ. is sourced to an opinion of somebody not involved with HA. Yet, the statement implies that these words are from HA itself. It should either be sourced to HA, or removed, or attributed to somebody else. Govgovgov (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 * no, the statement says that "HA regards homosexual orientation as 'sexual bokeness' that may be 'healed' through faith in Jesus christ" which is true and cited by a reliable source. Please see wikipedia's  verifiability rules.  Statements in articles should come from secondary sources, not primary sources whenever possible.  You will see the discussion above about the use of scarequotes and why we have done it for the Lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It must be shown to be the opinion of the person. You must see that any reader will see the quote marks as statements by HA themselves. Govgovgov (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I read them as scarequotes, and a proper use of scarequotes according to wikipedia's manual of style. In addition to being scarequotes they are also terminology derived from the source and the source is given.  The section is both faithful to both the subject of the article and the source of the idea, and attribution is properly given.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 * additionally, right now there is a current consensus on how quotes should be used, specifically those quotes you are challenging. As you can see from the discussion above, we have been working with this exact issue for a little while and have come to an agreement on what is to be done.  Now I don't mind you being WP:BOLD but since your boldness was working against the current consensus the original form should probably remain as is unless you have moved one of the other editors of this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is very misleading, tantamount to lying to the reader. Is there somewhere I can go to dispute this? Govgovgov (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the first step would be to wait. I would give it a day or so to see if someone involved with the former consensus on the page agrees with your assessment.  The reason you do this is that it shows you were trying to work within the community first and gave it a good faith effort.  Next you can go to the request for comment page or any of the other dispute resolution pages and ask for someone to look at this.  Finally, if you feel that you have not been treated fairly you can go to the administrator notice board and see if there is a subsection from that page which will better solve the problem.  It is my recommendation that you do not post on the ANI as the administrators do not typically get involved in issues like this on that board (it is reserved for problems which are probably going to lead to administrator intervention...ie. ban's etc.), but there may be a page on that board which will help you.  The first thing to do is wait though because otherwise it looks like you are just escalating the issue without giving time for the community process to work...a day should be long enough, and don't edit war because then you suddenly become the bad guy and most community pages do not treat edit wars well.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll wait a day or two then go to DR if it doesn't work out. Govgovgov (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * glad I could help. also, perhaps you should post exactly what you want the change to be and why so that this community can discuss the exact changes.  Something like "I propose we change '...xxxzzzxxxzzxxx' to '...xxxzzzxxxzzZZxxx' because 'blah blah blah'."  That talk page style tends to generate more community discussion than just citing wikipedia regulations at each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll do that, thanks. Govgovgov (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Specific sentence
The statement HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ. should be changed to Critics allege that HA regards ... because it is currently sourced to an opinion of somebody not involved with HA. Yet, the statement implies that these words are from HA itself. Govgovgov (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 * To start the discussion, I believe we should keep the sentence as is. I appreciate Govgovgov's concern and have checked the HA homepage and I have not found anything that contradicts that statement.  Whenever the words "critics allege that..." preface a statement it is usually followed by something that would be denied by the subject.  In this case I believe that HA does believe and in fact publicizes that they believe homosexual orientation is sexual brokeness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ.  For that reason I find no reason to preface the sentence.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that they believe that homosexual orientation is sexual brokeness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the quote marks and language itself in the sentence make it look like they have said those exact words. That's my only problem with it. Govgovgov (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Govgovgov has been blocked as a sock of banned user Acoma Magic.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 * They did at the time of the last consensus, which is why it is in quotes. I don't know if they rephrased it, moved it, or removed it since but they are still run the same and still try to cure gays with conversion therapy. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase "sexual brokenness" and the term "healed" are both directly quoted from the source referenced at the end of the sentence. EdChem (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 * That clears that up then ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that it looks like HA are being quoted when in fact it's an author's opinion of HA that's being quoted. It should be attributed to that author rather than effectively pretending to be quoting HA. Goo86 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The author's opinion ..." - the source is not an opinion piece. It is written by Julie Scott Jones, an academic and published by Ashgate Publishing, an academic publisher.  Reading the preface makes it clear that it is a report on ethnographic research.  In other words, we are talking about a clear reliable source and the identity of the author is not relevant.  It is an uncontroversial statement that is supported by a suitable reference and needs no attribution beyond the citation.  EdChem (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does when it appears that HA themselves are being quoted. This isn't complicated - we can't lie to the reader. You can write "It is widely believed" or something like that; we're just not allowed to effectively lie in this article. Goo86 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote is properly attributed to the correct source so no lying is taking place.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're deceiving or effectively lying to the vast majority of readers who don't check the source. Goo86 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * actually it is consistent with wikipedia's MOS.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it clearly breaks it - MOS. Goo86 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have requested further input in this section: Administrators%27 noticeboard. EdChem (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to file a sock reportCoffeepusher (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am interested in outside views on the content issue being discussed here, irrespective of whether Goo86 is a sock of Govgovgov / Acoma Magic. I don't follow what the MOS concern is here, but I could be wrong / misunderstanding, and an issue raised by a sock can still be a valid issue.  EdChem (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The MOS concern is derived from what I linked to in my previous comment. Although quote marks aren't around the entire sentence, the whole sentence is still taken from the author and therefore needs to be attributed, per that guideline. Goo86 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we probably need an outside opinion. Although I would say that the sock issue does play into this because all we have is one very opinionated person causing a lot of noise. Effectively we have been talking to the same individual about the same issue and they aren't budging even though there is a consensus among the rest of the editors. The fact that they not only sock, but were banned for just this behavior should play into how much attention we give them.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus just means more people need to read up on MOS. I think common sense is also an issue. I hadn't even read that section of the policy before you said that MOS is being followed, yet it was still clear that deceiving the reader was wrong. I'm certainly not interested in attention, I wish people would leave me alone to improve articles. Goo86 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MOS: The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. So, your comments seem to require that the quotation to be (implicitly) a full sentence. The dispute sentence is: HA regards homosexual orientation as "sexual brokeness" that may be "healed" through faith in Jesus Christ. So, let's compare to the source sentence: Organisations like Exodus International, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and Homosexuals Anonymous offer 'treatment' for homosexuality and ultimately 'cures' through a rejection of the 'homosexual lifestyle choice', counseling to locate the 'cause' of the 'sexual broken-ness', and intense Biblical study.  Celibacy or marriage are seen as possible means to 'cure' so-called 'sexual brokeness.'  Homosexuals Anonymous apes the twelve step program popularise by Alcoholics Anonymous, through offering a fourteen step program to 'cure' 'sexual brokeness'. The phrase "sexual brokeness" clearly comes from the source but not as part of a sentence from the source.  "In Jesus Christ" is not in the section I have quoted but the section is dealing with christian fundamentalist and protestant fundamentalist groups and discusses Biblical study, which fits entirely with their faith being in Christ.  The word "healed" is not used directly, so I would agree removing the quotation marks around it or changing the word to "cured" - which I suspect I avoided originally as it is a much more loaded term.  Remember also that HA adopts a modified 12 step program approach, all of which start with faith in a higher power to deal with the addiction, so I don't see how HA would dispute that (a) homosexuals are sexually broken in some sense (hence the need to become heterosexual or celibate) and (b) that faith in Christ is a part of the process of change.  Thoughts?  EdChem (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I have to explain this for it to stick, but this'll be my last post anyway. I agree with everything that the source says and how it characterises HA. However, by putting quote marks around these words and because of the language of the sentence, it deceives the reader into thinking that HA has been quoted as saying those things. No source has been provided that they have used those words and so this misattribution must be fixed. Goo86 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ok good. We get your point, we all disagree with you but we get it.  The outside source (below) also stated that they agreed with you that it did give the impression that it was terminology that HA uses, however they stated that there wasn't a problem as long as it didn't contradict the organizations principles which you have stated it doesn't.  If someone else comes in and agrees with you then we can revisit this thing, but if not this might be a good time to drop the stick and slowly walk away because it is beginning to look like you have more than an editorial stake in all this.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fought to death much less than this, so it's an editorial stake combined with a personality disorder. Bye! Goo86 (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Saw the AN post. Coming in totally cold (I know nothing about this organization and have given only a brief glace to the debate here), those quotes do give the impression that "sexual brokenness" and "healing" are terminology used by the organization. If that accurately reflects their views, I see no problem with it, though I am not especially familiar with this specific instance. -- LWG talk 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It accurately reflects their views but no source has been provided that it reflects their terminology and the article is pretending to be quoting from them. That's the problem with it. Goo86 (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you can check their website . The quotes are there because they are a direct quote from the cited source.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Giving that website a quick glance-over I don't see anywhere where they describe homosexuality as "sexual brokenness". At least with their public face they seem to be presenting themselves as an alternative lifestyle choice for homosexuals. Again this is just my first impressions. -- LWG talk 04:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Goo86 has been blocked as a sock of banned user Acoma Magic.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in the WikiProject Addictions and recovery project
I started a thread about including Homosexuals Anonymous and other groups on the addictions and recovery project page. Wanted to mention it here in case any editors had opinions on way or another. - Scarpy (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous/Archive 1