This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aesthetic Realism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is currently undergoing a major revision. Please help edit the new version on the draft page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
The section on homosexuality is lengthy and, in my view, not NPOV-compliant. For example:
> In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.[^cite_ref-82][82] In 1978, ads were placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” They were signed by 50 men and women.[^cite_ref-83][83] With few exceptions, the press in general either ignored or dismissed the assertion of persons who said they changed. [citation needed]
> The gay press and gay reporters were generally hostile to Aesthetic Realism.[^cite_ref-84][84] A 1982 Boston Globe article written by “the first openly gay reporter” on its staff,[^cite_ref-85][85] interviewed primarily gay therapists and then reported that the “assertion” of change through Aesthetic Realism was “a claim staggering to psychiatrists and psychologists.”[^cite_ref-86][86] About 250 people protested the article on the Boston Common. The Globe’s ombudsman later wrote in his column that the article was biased against Aesthetic Realism and that it contained “strong, negative words without attribution” and “inaccuracies”.[^cite_ref-87][87]
> Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, accusing the philosophy of offering a “gay cure” and expressing skepticism that homosexuality could or should change.[^cite_ref-88][88] Persons within the gay pride movement associated the desire of a man to change from homosexuality with a lack of pride in a gay identity, and saw Aesthetic Realism as biased against a gay lifestyle. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation stated unequivocally that it supported full, completely equal civil rights for homosexuals, including the right of a man or woman to live their life in the way they chose.[^cite_ref-89][89]
Apparently, according to Aesthetic Realist interpretations of language, it’s technically correct to say they did not offer a “gay cure” because they framed it as “change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism.” This subtle distinction, however, is not clarified in this whole 759-word section. To a lay-reader, phrases like “accusing the philosophy of offering a ‘gay cure’” seem contradictory given the preceding lengthy descriptions of orientation-change efforts by Aesthetic Realists.
The entire section psychologizes gay groups, framing their opposition as almost a misunderstanding or emotionally driven rather than a substantive disagreement with the philosophy’s aims. My edits, which you reverted in their entirety, included noting that sexual-orientation change is now widely rejected or even condemned by scientific, medical, and psychological communities. I also mentioned that it is illegal in some jurisdictions. This information seems essential for neutrality, given the apologetic tone around the supposedly voluntary, non-blanket-pathologizing conversion therapy as practiced by Aesthetic Realism.
Wikipedia should not be a platform for the messaging of any particular philosophy or quasi-religious movement. There should be a clear commitment to NPOV, providing balanced perspectives. Given the strong mainstream scientific view that sexual orientation cannot be changed—especially through philosophical methods—some concession to this view is the minimum required for a balanced perspective.
The section currently implies that gay advocates oppose orientation change efforts because of psychological issues or misunderstandings rather than well-documented concerns about ineffectiveness and harm. Here is an example of language I attempted to add, in an NPOV way:
> Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, due to its promotion of sexual-orientation change.
The reason for this opposition is that these efforts are widely viewed as ineffective and often harmful, a position strongly supported by mainstream science and the collapse of ex-gay organizations. While I avoided explicitly discussing harm in my edit, I noted that many jurisdictions ban the practice for minors, by medical professionals, or even outright. This indicates a broad societal discomfort with such practices in Western countries today.
And it’s not that gay groups had a psychological complex around insufficient “Pride™” or misunderstood the philosophy as a “gay cure.” Their opposition stems from legitimate concerns, yet the current section implies otherwise. Here’s another example of problematic framing:
> Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, accusing the philosophy of offering a “gay cure” and expressing skepticism that homosexuality could or should change. Persons within the gay pride movement associated the desire of a man to change from homosexuality with a lack of pride in a gay identity, and saw Aesthetic Realism as biased against a gay lifestyle.
At the very least, this section should be substantially shortened. It begins with a positive depiction of successful conversion therapy, followed by a long discussion on the approach. Here’s another paragraph for context:
> With the exception of a brief 1971 review calling The H Persuasion “less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers,” The New York Times never reported that men said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Students of the philosophy who said they changed from homosexuality or in other large ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people. In the 1970s they mounted an aggressive campaign of telephone calls, letters, ads, and vigils in front of various media offices and at the homes of editors. Many wore lapel buttons that read “Victim of the Press.”
So, again, we're focusing on victimization and supposed bias in the press. The slant and selection of information here is pretty evident, particularly given what's *omitted*.
Additionally, my notes about the website “Countering the Lies” were removed. This gives insight into Aesthetic Realism views circa 2004, emphasizing a belief in orientation change as real. This is noteworthy, given that the page otherwise presents a highly selective narrative, omitting any clear acknowledgment of modern perspectives on orientation change.
I invite third-party input on this matter, as I believe the current section could be substantially improved to better reflect Wikipedia’s NPOV and Verifiability policies. An unbiased, concise summary that acknowledges mainstream scientific consensus would better serve Wikipedia’s readers. Borwse (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this section of the article is lengthy and needs clarification. I'd like to take a stab at condensing and clarifying it taking into account your comments and we can take it from there. Braxton7248 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
