| Revision as of 15:20, 14 March 2013 editCoffeepusher (talk | contribs)7,488 edits →Howdy!← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:35, 14 March 2013 edit undoScientiom (talk | contribs)1,799 edits done with this collaboration :)Next edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :::Thanks | :::Thanks | ||
| :::I've ended up at DRN due to a discussion with the IP you reverted . I'm just letting you know in advance as you might be called up at some stage. <small>I don't know...I don't really like DRN or being called to go there and it's a reason i don't edit controversial stuff as much anymore.</small> Thanks ''']<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>(])</sup>''' 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | :::I've ended up at DRN due to a discussion with the IP you reverted . I'm just letting you know in advance as you might be called up at some stage. <small>I don't know...I don't really like DRN or being called to go there and it's a reason i don't edit controversial stuff as much anymore.</small> Thanks ''']<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>(])</sup>''' 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Howdy!== | |||
| Hay, we are going back and forth on this, and I think we should really figure out some form of consensus. My consern is that having "scientific consensus" take up over half the lede doesn't faithfully represent the article, and can be seen as against ]. However a short sentence or two in the lede indicating that there is a huge controversy in the scientific community, followed by your well researched paragraphs in the appropriate section will be in line with ] and also have your edit faithfully represented. what are you thinking?] (]) 14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, I noted your point and went ahead and trimmed it well. Although a short sentence or two would be inappropriate as WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, and especially WP:PSCI (very importantly: "''An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be <u>prominently included</u>''") means that we give significant prominence to what the global scientific community says in regard to a very controversial issue about which scientific organizations have cautioned about. --] (]) 14:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, but ] is different in the lede than in the body since the lede is a summary. So if we have say two sentances in the lede representing a paragraph in the body for every other point in the article, then two paragraphs in the lede would represent a sizable body of text in the body. Can we workshop this section together?] (]) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've amended my reply, if you could have a look at it. I've already vastly trimmed the lead, and to do so any further would be in violation of WP:PSCI/WP:WEIGHT/WP:VALID, all which obviously apply to both the body and the lead. Especially important here is WP:PSCI, and I quote once again from this policy: ''"An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be <u>prominently included</u>"''. Especially considering that there is not only huge controversy as you say, but also outright condemnation. Best regards, --] (]) 14:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ok, I appreciate that. Right now though we still have the exact same two paragraphs in the lede and another section. perhaps something like this would work | |||
| :::::Ex-gay organizations rely upon what is called ],<ref>, ]. Retrieved July 4, 2007.</ref> which is a method that claims to help the individual establish heterosexual attractions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://exodusinternational.org/2010/01/find-the-right-counselor/ |title=How to Find the Right Counselor for You – Exodus International |publisher=Exodusinternational.org |date=January 11, 2010 |accessdate=November 13, 2011}}</ref> Consensus within the scientific community not only disputes this claim of conversion as "unlikely"<ref name="therapeuticresponse"/> but has publicly renounced the method and identified it as potentially harmful <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf |title=Expert affidavit of Gregory M. Herek, PhD |format=PDF |accessdate=November 13, 2011}}</ref><ref name=royal2009>Royal College of Psychiatrists: </ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.aspx |title=Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation & Youth |accessdate=2011-04-02 |publisher=American Psychological Association}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-silent-allegations-clinic-offers-gay-conversion/story?id=14057215 |title=Bachmann Silent on Allegations Her Clinic Offers Gay Conversion Therapy |accessdate=June 13, 2011 |publisher=]}}</ref> and agrees that "sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable"<ref name="DOMA2011">,"Second, while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable"</ref> | |||
| :::::The ] (the North and South American branch of the ]) has called upon government organizations to expose conversion therapy as a psudo-science, and to investigate possible violations of ] that may be taking place within these organizations.<ref name=PAHO>{{cite web|title="Therapies" to change sexual orientation lack medical justification and threaten health|url=http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926|publisher=Pan American Health Organization|accessdate=May 26, 2012}} archived .</ref> | |||
| ::::Adding this to the lede will provide a good summary, keep with every issue you are conserned with, and isn't a direct word for word reproduction of the section. Additionally I have been able to keep all your references which will stand up to scrutiny if anyone challenges this addition. What do you think?] (]) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::re-reading it, I would like to replace "conversion therapy" to "ex-gay movements" in the second section about the pan american health organization.] (]) 14:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hmm, I'm fairly agreeable to introducing your proposed wording, but we should firmer about not creating any sense of validity for pseudoscience as per WP:PSCI. Some of the wording will also need to be more in line with the sources (you wrote "investigate possible violations of human rights that may be taking place within these organizations", but the violations have already been reported by the UN, and what they do is itself a violation of human rights as the source shows, so it should be amended to reflect the source). I'll see if I can implement your proposal in line with the policy. Glad to have had a successful swift collaboration. :) --] (]) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'll also trim a source or two for the obvious facts or ones which are clearly shown in the body of the article, and some explanations may also be able to be trimmed, such as for 'conversion therapy' since it is linked and also explained in the body of the article. --] (]) 15:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I look forward to seeing the addition.] (]) 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:35, 14 March 2013
Hatnote
I just added a hatnote to the SSM article. Does it address the concerns you mentioed yesterday? Pass a Method talk 18:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know...
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Little green rosetta reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: ). Thank you. —StAnselm (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
I just wanted to drop by to welcome you back. We missed your contributions. Cheers. - MrX 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! Now you made me hungry again - coincidentally I had a strawberry milkshake about 2 hours ago. Heh Heh. :P --Scientiom (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Homophobic propaganda rename?
Hi Scientiom, shouldn't this article be renamed to homosexual propaganda? That would be the WP:COMMONNAME after all since we don't call homophobia non-heterosexuality and since this title seems biased to me.
And the lede wouldn't have to change too much to become something like: Homosexual propaganda (or gay propaganda) is a perceived tactic some accuse homosexual and sometimes other non-heterosexual people of using to recruit others and/or gain acceptance.
What do you think? Thanks ツ Jenova20 11:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe this article is about anti-LGBT rhetoric? --Scientiom (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's about homophobic propaganda, commonly called homosexual or gay propaganda, not homophobic propaganda. If it's about anti-LGBT rhetoric then it needs a rename anyway or a merge into homophobia. This is the same reason we have a homophobia article instead of an opposition to gay people or non-heterosexual article. This name doesn't strike me as neutral. Do you see what i mean? Thanks ツ Jenova20 11:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've decided to continue adding to my sandbox article. We can always merge later if it's decided they're similar enough. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. Good luck with your work on that! :) --Scientiom (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks
- I've ended up at DRN due to a discussion with the IP you reverted here. I'm just letting you know in advance as you might be called up at some stage. I don't know...I don't really like DRN or being called to go there and it's a reason i don't edit controversial stuff as much anymore. Thanks ツ Jenova20 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)