" 

 RESPONSE TO CSAGUARO 

 Use of the term ""Aesthetic Realists"".  Use of this term is widespread, including by the Aesthetic Realists themselves in their own book ""Personal and Impersonal: Six Aesthetic Realists"" (also listed on Amazon), the Baltimore Sun (quoted on the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's website), the Village Voice (1969 and 2008), New York Magazine, Getty Images , photographer EA Schwartz , the book Gay American History , professional historian Mark Hufstetler Bozeman , Bill Samuels , and Anthony Haden Guest .  Existence of the common use of this term is more than substantiated.  Not that I think we should use another term, but how do you suggest we succinctly refer to the people that everyone else refers to as Aesthetic Realists? (e.g., in sentences such as, ""Aesthetic Realists say that their views about homosexuality are being misrepresented by their critics."") 

 ""Attempt for publicity.""  Already defended in detail above.  Not my fault if you won't discuss. 

 Whether the change is a fact or a claim.  You write, ""I know with my body and my marriage that the change from homosexuality is a real cherished fact. I don't need a secondary source to verify.""  Good for you that you don't need a source for yourself.  But an enycyclopedia does.  That's the point.  People can't just waltz into an encyclopedia and start presenting their opinions as though they were undisputed facts.  Because there is dispute on this issue, starting with the New York Times review of the H Persuasion in 1971 which reported the idea of conversion as a claim, not as a fact.  You're welcome to your sincerely-held belief.  But the strength and sincerity of your belief doesn't erase the doubt of so many others.  In the absence of proof (vs. CSaguaro's assertion), we have to report a controversial, disputed claim as just thata claim. 

 A. Whether contempt is a mental issue.  If contempt doesn't exist in the mind, then where exactly does it exist?  AR's book describes contempt as a psychological issue.  And psychology is the study of the mind, as everyone knows.  Also remember that I quoted an Aesthetic Realism faculty member who said that Eli Siegel asserted that contempt ""causes all mental trouble"". 

 B. Reiss' ""don't get better"" quote.  You wrote, ""The statement is about psychiatry not homosexuality. The phrase 'don’t get better' which was said about psychiatry is then used as the source for 'get better' in relation to homosexuality. This is mis-characteriation.""   Response: See the context in the article (""Gays who have gone straight"") and then tell me that again with a straight face. 

 C. AR view of homosexuality/contempt.  You're right, I edited so that the readers can draw their own conclusions. 

 D. Double-page ad.  I think anytime someone throws down a third of a million dollars on a double-page ad in the New York Times, that counts as ""bold"".  In an encyclopedia we do shy away from adjectives, but when something is so blatantly obvious and over the top, we'll sometimes take the liberty of describing it in terms that most reasonable people would agree with.  But I'll defer to WillBeback on whether the word ""bold"" is appropriate here.  I do agree that the section would benefit from clarity that the ad wasn't exclusively about homosexuality.  I couldn't think of a good way to work that in the first time, but I made a stab at it just now. 

 E. Gay change therapy sessions unsourced.  Okay, I added a source.  There are certainly plenty to choose from.NEWL