Talk:National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sept 2005

Note (Sept 2005): NPOV calls for presenting "sexual preferences/sexual orientation" together, as both 'orientation' and 'preference' are inherently biased by implication.

Note that NARTH itself uses the term "sexual adaptation": "The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable." - Serge Dupouy 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious bias towards homosexual behaviour, this organization believes in so-called reparative therapy which most in the mental health community condemn. Ifnord 16:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Political?

First of all excuse me for my broken English. It is said in the article: This event is notable as the first (but not last) decision in history to feature a scientific organization changing its policies on political, not scientific ground, as a result of a vote, at least in the 20th century. Is this an official statement of APA? Is this a statement developed by an official, neutral organization or media? I don't see cited source of this fact(?). Because if this is a statement declared only by NARTH, I thing that objectivity of the article is problematic. --Stalik 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love it. It's perfectly okay for homosexual researchers such as Simon LeVay or sympathizers such as Evelyn Hooker to use poor research controls and get away with it. Face it, there is no such thing as objectivity in psychological research. That's why John Dewey famously said that the scientific method was inapplicable to human behavior. All psychology is political, I don't hear any of you complaining about the Marxist influences in Jean Paiget or Abraham Maslow's research.

What about the twins' study conducted by Dean Hamer? The study's small sample was so small that it was statistically laughable. That's not to mention that only around 50 percent of the identical twins where one twin was homosexual, the other one was also. It should have been a 100 percent result, that is if homosexuality were genetic, but his study also failed to account for environmental factors.

The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973 had nothing to do with objective standards of research and everything to do with politics. Hooker's study is for one riddled with political biases, such as her work with the gay Marxist Mattachine Society, or her notoriously unreliable heterosexual comparison group. Then you have Kinsey's flawed studies, etc.

If the same standards and methods used by homosexual activists to get homosexuality removed from the DSM were applied by schizophrenia activists, schizophrenia would come off the DSM tomorrow.

The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc., have become little more than the research arm of the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, etc. Political group indeed. --68.45.161.241 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"If the same standards and methods used by homosexual activists to get homosexuality removed from the DSM were applied by schizophrenia activists, schizophrenia would come off the DSM tomorrow." - User 68.45.161.241

You're implying they're analogous. They're not. Schizophrenia is a collection of symptoms which hinder a person's ability to function "normally" and usually involve distress. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, fits none of the criteria for "mental illness". There is nothing inherent in homosexuality which would justify it being put in the DSM. The people who have problems with homosexuality are (1) those who do because of religious reasons or (2) because they do not understand it and are afraid of it (and quite possibly, for some, this fear is related to their own homosexual attractions).Athbhreith 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"There is nothing inherent in homosexuality which would justify it being put in the DSM." There is no genetic proof elucidating that homosexuality is the result of genetic make-up (the "born that way" stance). Psychologists studying homosexuality have found no conclusive evidence that point to homosexuality being the result of genes, hence its categorization as a mental illness. Further, the inability of homosexuals to reproduce denotes the unnatural facet of homosexuality. This is why the article states that the policies of APA were changed based on political, not scientific, reasons. There is no scientific reasoning to explain homosexuality. There is only political reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvca22 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no genetic proof that handedness is genetic either. Therefore, it would be legitimate to classify left-handedness as a mental disorder, correct? After all, they can't use right-handed scissors very well. To say otherwise is only political reasoning. TechBear 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Gene LRRTM1 controls handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.31.254 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no genetic explanation for homosexuality, is there any genetic explanation for being a heterosexual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.168.57 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias in favor of NARTH

The use of "so-called" to refer to the hard sciences and mainstream political associations is a common tactic used by many to cast doubt on the named groups. I recommend, at the very least, the removal of those terms.

Also, in the last line, where it says: "But consultation of the NARTH website shows that many of its research results have been accepted by peer-reviewed journals," the article makes no mention of what articles have been accepted by the peer-reviewed jorunals (PRJs). If the articles accepted by the PRJs are not on the subject of NARTH's "homosexual therapies," then their mention in this article should be removed, as it seems to imply that while that one paper mentioned was not accepted, others of the same type were. --Triphesas 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

The article quotes Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons. How is he connected to NARTH? Fireplace 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He is with the Catholic Medical Association - take a wild guess. 87.171.124.212 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Nicolosi, User:Mike Hatfield, Joie de Vivre (found this in google news)

This article is about some recent edits here. I think now would be a good time for all personally-interested parties to step back from editing the page a bit, and work here on the talk page to reach a compromise. Assume Good Faith on ALL SIDES, and I think this will go much smoother. I am sure everyone wants this organization to be presented fairly and accurately.--Jimbo Wales 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:Mike Hatfield, their editorial director made some changes to the article, which were reverted by User:Joie de Vivre. They want Joie to be prohibited from making changes to the article, but obviously there are better way to handle the dispute. I've dropped at note on Mike's talk page, asking him to discuss the matter. utcursch | talk 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also found this on google news and agree with Jimbo - interested parties should step back. IMHO articles which have more info on the criticism than the actual subject area are generally not neutral. --Trödel 11:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Hatfield here. I left a message on de Vivre's page a couple of days ago and have had no response yet. I asked her to refrain from reverting my efforts to correct inaccurate information about NARTH. Since I represent NARTH, it seems only ethical to permit us to make changes on an article about our organization. Reverting our corrections simply reinforces bad information. Those wishing to truly understand NARTH should access our web site and decide for themselves what our goals are: narth.com. Mike Hatfield 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia (including Mike Hatfield and including Joie de Vivre). Editors who are experts on a subject matter or who represent an organization that is the subject matter of the article are given no special deference. WP:ATT and WP:CONSENSUS outlines some guiding policies, and WP:COI might be relevant here too. You're welcome to edit the article, and if someone contests your changes, the specifics of the content should be discussed on this talk page. Fireplace 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians cannot give official statements. If NARTH wants to make an official statement, it should do it on its own page, and then it could be referenced here.Joshuajohanson 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also remember that Wikipedia's policy is to aim for verifiability, not truth. eaolson 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Nicolosi's concerns

I was surprised to discover that Nicolosi's response to my revert of the insertion of unsourced material was a demanding, defamatory letter to Jimbo Wales, rather than a request for discussion on the article's or my Talk page. No one from NARTH contacted me regarding their concerns. I became aware of their position only when NYC JD helpfully informed me on my Talk page that Nicolosi, in his letter to Wales, had stated: "We insist that [Joie de Vivre] be prohibited from making future changes on the NARTH site".

I would have been perfectly willing to discuss User:Mike Hatfield's concerns, had he raised them. In January 2007, I responded to a nearly identical concern raised by User:Acdixon, regarding whether the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) organization maintains that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Our discussion, while thorough, remained polite, and resulted not only in a harmonious resolution of the content dispute, but in mutual thanks and praise. After resolving the issue, User:Acdixon's response was:

"Thank you for remaining diplomatic and open during this discourse. I believe this discussion represents a classic example of how disputes on Wikipedia are to be handled."

I believe that this demonstrates that I would have responded appropriately to Mike Hatfield's concerns, had he made any effort to express them. Rather than by making any effort to communicate with me, Nicolosi immediately responded to the issue with demands to Jimbo Wales that I be banned from contributing. Nicolosi even referred to me as a "lesbian socio-political activist" in his letter. I do not recall ever having revealed either my gender or my sexual orientation on Wikipedia, or to Mr. Nicolosi. It seems that my mere association with WikiProject:LGBT studies led him to make assumptions about my gender and sexual orientation, despite the diversity among the Project's members.

Nicolosi's response as NARTH's representative is a sudden departure from the courteous discussion of content I have come to regard as normal at Wikipedia. I hope that Nicolosi, Hatfield and other NARTH associates will familiarize themselves with the local customs before causing further disruption. I thoroughly agree with Nicolosi's assertion that "It is dangerous for [Wikipedia's] credibility to have political activists slanting articles to fit their own political objectives." Cordially, Joie de Vivre 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This article does not present a neutral point of view because it includes unbalanced quantity of information and does not properly describe the subject matter before engaging in criticism. --Trödel 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit is indicitive of the problem such a large criticism section has - the criticisms are criticised, the detail is too much, and the page devolves into an argumentative essay instead of an informative encyclopedia article. --Trödel 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a views section. Hopefully the article can reflect some of the group's ideas before delving into the criticism section. BabyJonas 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On whether NARTH views homosexuality as a mental disorder

This quote may be helpful to whoever wants to tackle this article next:

"NARTH is an association founded to study homosexuality. We make the assumption that obligatory homosexuality is treatable disorder. Our members hold many variations of that essential view. The NARTH officers may opt to deny or remove membership when an individual’s written statements or public speeches show a clear antipathy to this position. We do not always choose to exercise this option, but will do so when, in our judgment, a potential member is likely to be disruptive because he or she is blatantly opposed to our goals." National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (1996), Letter to Ralph Roughton, M.D. from Joseph Nicolosi, NARTH Secretary June 10. Fireplace 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is cited in Jack Drescher MD, "I’m Your Handyman: A History of Reparative Therapies" Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 36(1) 1998. Fireplace 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors may also wish to take a look at this, from the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=717 Fireplace 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotations from NARTH member Gerald Schoenwolf

On African slavery: There is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America," writes Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee. "Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… . Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off."[1]

On civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights:"All such movements are destructive."[2]

Holy shit. Joie de Vivre 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In this so-called age of diversity and supposed tolerance, it's still OK to reject the conservative perspective out of hand as being totally invalid and unacceptable. Priceless. breadmanpaul 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Even More On African Slavery:

The Southern Poverty Law Center interviewed Schoenewolf about an opinion piece he had written for NARTH on the damage done by excessive political correctness.

Schoenewolf's opinion piece had described the simplistic depiction of certain disfavored groups -- such as, "white Southerners bad, enslaved peoples good" -- "males bad, females good" -- "business owners bad, laborers good" -- and the stunted political discourse that such politically correct thinking engenders.

[...] the SPLC got it wrong that Schoenewolf said any person is "better off" overall because of a moral wrong done against him.

"No person is better off enslaved, obviously," Schoenewolf told NARTH. "What I tried to say, before my words were twisted by that reporter, is that despite the clear and obvious evil of that practice, we tend to forget that many of the enslaved people had been first been sold into bondage by their fellow countrymen; so coming to America did bring about some eventual good. No social issue has all the 'good guys' lined up on one side and 'bad guys' on the other."

[3] BabyJonas 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-A clarification of his comments. What he's trying to say I believe is that there is no cookie-cutter definition of good or bad. Passion and emotion can often overwhelm logic and rationale, leading to hasty conclusions that are often extreme and end up vilifying a group of people that do not deserve it. He claims that this has occurred to some extent within the movements, where for example the feminist movement has in some cases led to an indiscriminate derision of all men, or where the civil rights movement led some to the indiscriminately deride all whites, etc.

Come on now, who hasn't heard the phrase "All men are pigs" uttered before? :) BabyJonas 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, of course, historically there are people who must have felt they themselves were better off as slaves, given that they sold themselves into slavery. This is still not to say it was right, but rather that they were in situations where they had to choose between various moral wrongs & they decided that slavery was the least of them. (Always keep in mind that sometimes, there is no 'morally correct' choice...)71.76.235.161 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the purpose of Talk pages: to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss the subject. And this isn't even the subject, so... Joie de Vivre 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edit War

Each side should consider not reverting UNTIL YOU HAVE A RELIABLE SOURCE to support your version. Should both sides produce reliable sources, then you need to work out a version that adequately reflects BOTH positions, as presented in the Reliable Sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear what this issue is about. Conversion therapy is a term used to describe methods of changing sexual orientation; reparative therapy is sometimes used as a term for conversion therapy in general, but properly speaking it refers to a particular kind of conversion therapy. It's important to be clear that NARTH advocates reparative therapy specifically, and not any kind of oonversion therapy, because that could imply that it advocates aversion therapy, a serious factual misrepresentation. Skoojal (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So you say - find a source to back you up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What TRPOD said. You have had about a week to find a source. If one is not forthcoming, the unsourced assertions will be reverted. Whistling42 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to explain why you think that your unsourced assertions are better than mine? Skoojal (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Until one or both provides citations, the article should remain at WP:The Wrong Version with appropriate {fact} tags. Or if you can agree on a way to temorarily remove the statements wiht problematic phrasing from the article, that may also be an option.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whistling, what exactly is your issue with "reparative therapy"? Neither reparative or conversion therapy is without its problems as a term. Reparative therapy offends the LGBT side because it implies that the lack of a desire to pound vagina is a mental illness, and Conversion therapy isn't grammatically correct because reparative therapy does not necessarily seek to convert or transmute same-sex attractions into opposite-sex attractions. Neither word is perfect and both convey certain POV connotations. However as long as this controversy is made clear within the article, I don't see the big problem in using reparative therapy as that is the term used by its proponents. -- User0529 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and medicine link

Without trudging through the edit history to track down the dispute (not knowing when it happened), what is the big deal about the sexual orientation and medicine link? I'm not reverting the revert, just wondering the background since I wasn't aware I was stepping into some previously standing dispute about that particular link. --User0529 (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason why that link should not be there (it's in the article on NARTH's President Joseph Nicolosi), so I have restored it. Skoojal (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Questionable Claims

I recently removed several claims from the article, including this: 'Opponents of reparative therapy[neutrality disputed] refer to it as "conversion therapy"[neutrality disputed] as reparative therapy implies same-sex desires are something that need to be repaired.' This seems to suggest that supporters of conversion therapy never use the term 'conversion therapy', something that is questionable and which in fact would be impossible to prove. Skoojal (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationale was to try to provide a solution to the debate about terminology by explaining the controversy (and then using the "reparative" term for the rest of the article). IMHO that would be the best solution, but am open to more accurate ways of doing that. --User0529 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should try asking NARTH what kind of therapy they advocate? They might answer if the question is phrased politely. Skoojal (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That would constitute original research, which is a Wikipedia no-no afaik. A glance at their web site suggests they use the reparative therapy term. It would make sense to just use the term they use while explaining the controversy briefly,with a link to conversion therapy for more information.
Note: interestingly enough the GLBTQ encyclopedia (not exactly WorldNetDaily) has no problems using the reparative therapy term. insisting on calling it conversion is political correctness over kill methinks. That would be like insisting the abortion article call it fetuscide just because an editor was anti abortion rights and they wanted to demonize it --User0529 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. If NARTH uses the term reparative therapy a lot, the article should say that they advocate reparative therapy. It doesn't seem like a difficult issue to decide. Skoojal (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, another look at their site shows that they use the term conversion therapy as well, so it wouldn't be wrong to say that NARTH advocates conversion therapy, just so long as it's clear that this primarily means reparative therapy and does not include absolutely any and every form of conversion therapy (NARTH rejects one kind of conversion therapy here [4]). Skoojal (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Narth writes in

• http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html
• http://www.narth.com/docs/disagree.html and
• http://www.narth.com/docs/leaman.html

about their perspective toward therapies. The second source is the most importand one. Because my English is not very fluent, I suppose someone else to improve the article with this sources. I tried to translate ther German Narth-Article via babelfish, but the topic is to complicated and You get mainly nonsense. --Diskriminierung (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be misleading to say either that NARTH advocates reparative therapy (because they don't seem to reject the idea that other therapies might be helpful) or that they advocate conversion therapy (because it could be taken as an advocacy of any kind of therapy at all). Exactly what wording should be used needs to be considered carefully. Skoojal (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tags

I am going to remove most or all of the neutrality disputed tags in the near future, because of the lack of ongoing discussion about this article's neutrality. I will reconsider if somebody objects. Skoojal (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually I write in de.wikipedia our parallel article is well balanced and mainly uses English sources. I will compare both. Please wait a little. --Diskriminierung (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see the tags refer to the alleged advocation of the Reparative Therapy. This is not neutral, because it is wrong. Only some - not all - of the members advocate this kind of therapy, but not NARTH itself.

They advodate all kinds of Reorientation Therapy. This is a generic term which includes inter alia reperative therapy but also some other kinds of therapy: http://www.narth.com/docs/disagree.html

--Diskriminierung (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

NARTH has distanced itself from some kinds of conversion therapy, such as holding therapy, so strictly speaking it is not true that it advocates 'all kinds of reorientation therapy.' I take your general point, however (see my comments in the section above, 'Removed Questionable Claims'). Skoojal (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I grant you that all kinds was an exaggeration. We could write perhaps, NARTH advocates a variety of reorientation therapies, some members recommend reparative therapy.

And far more importand - someone should write about Reorientation Therapy --Diskriminierung (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not use the wording you suggest above. NARTH as an organization is strongly associated with reparative therapy; I don't think your suggested version stresses this strongly enough. Skoojal (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misinformation: Who is President of NARTH?

The article reads, 'A. Dean Byrd is the president of NARTH.' However, if you look at the article on Joseph Nicolosi, it says that he is the President of NARTH. One of these two statements must be wrong. Skoojal (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording: gay people and bisexual people versus homosexuals and bisexuals

I have changed the wording of the lede from "gay and bisexual people" to "homosexuals and bisexuals." I have not done this because I think that the latter set of terms are necessarily better than the former, but because the former set are probably more accurate in this particular instance. Otherwise, the article is making it sound as though NARTH officially endorsed the terms "gay and bisexual people", which seems questionable at best. I realize that someone may challenge this edit, and I am not going to try to preserve this wording if there is a consensus that something else should be used. If possible, a direct quote from NARTH should perhaps be used to avoid disputes over wording. Devil Goddess (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"NARTH often partners with religious organizations at ex-gay and conversion therapy events"

Please note that for this statement to stand, the editor adding it (per WP:BURDEN) must demonstrate independent, reliably sourced evidence that NARTH is doing the partnering. Asserting religious folks use NARTH's work, that NARTH has religious people, or that NARTH shows up on stage at religious events is insufficient for the text as worded.

Perhaps a better way to deal with this is to assert correlation, not causality. There's no question that NARTH is present at such conferences, nor that religious organizations quote or reference NARTH. The problem is, that statement goes somewhat beyond that. If Focus on the Family were funding NARTH, that would be one thing. The assertion under debate actually reads the other way around--that NARTH is enabling religious criticism of homosexuality. I have a really hard time buying that; I think it's pretty obvious that the causality is the other way around. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your non-neutral POV is being expressed in the edits in the article, and we must not pretend to be unable to see what is written in the References. I viewed the webpages myself just now, using the Internet Archive, and the explicitly religious nature of the organizations partnering with NARTH is plain and clear. In fact, to deny it seems beyond absurd, i would go so far as to accuse such an edit (removing the content and its references) as being intentionally misrepresentative and very non-neutral. Please do not revert or otherwise alter that portion of the NARTH article until you reach a consensus with other editors, thanks. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I expressed no POV. You've failed to assume good faith here. But we'll leave that aside for a while and deal with the substantive issue: WP:V. Verifiability is not subject to consensus. If a thousand Wikipedia editors want an article to say something, but there's no reliable source which backs that assertion up, they're just out of luck. The sole problem with that section is that the references don't back up what the article says. Rather than reverting you again, which is my right since the references don't support the statements, I'm going to appropriately tag the section. You have 24 hours to fix it to address the issues, during which time I won't interfere with your efforts to correct the phrasing and/or come up with references that support the phrasing as it stands now. After that, what isn't supported by reliable sources is going to be excised from the article as unverifiable or original research. Note that I've already proposed one very valid way of dealing with the effort, and you're absolutely free to use it. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to go looking for additional Reliable Sources, although they are plentiful: google search, CSU Fresno, Burroway's description of Nicolosi, UCDavis describing NARTH and Exodus. All we need to do is take a look at NARTH's own webpage:

http://narth.com/menus/theological.html

They seem unambiguously affiliated with compatible religious organizations for the purpose of advancing their positions. What other kind of "verification" are you expecting? I don't think they need an extra blessing from the Pope, because they already have dozens of religious endorsements, and relationships with a broad spectrum of heterosupremacist religious organizations, all easily viewable from their own website. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314, please assume good faith in your comments. I see no evidence of anti-gay or pro-NARTH bias here, and I'm very sorry to see such accusations being made. Born Gay (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be semantics, but partners is a very specific verb that implies a formal, perhaps even legally recognized, relationship--I would expect the term domestic partnership should be well known to anyone familiar with this topic. Does NARTH partner with anyone? Google doesn't know of any. Again, I think it's probably closer to the truth to say that NARTH is a puppet of religious groups, rather than a partner or enabler. Getting these things wrong undermines credibility, so let's make absolutely sure to stick to what is said in black-and-white in reliable sources: no OR, no synthesis, nothing but what everyone can agree is said outright. That should be enough with which to build a good encyclopedic article on NARTH, should it not? Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens that the source does not support the claim as it appears in the article. It needs to be removed or reworded to be closer to the source. Here is a quote from the relevant page of the book: "For the present, however, reparative therapists have demonstrated their willingness to ally themselves with religious denominations that condemn homosexuality. Because they are unable to find reputable scientific support for their positions these antihomosexual religious organizations have turned to reparative therapists to treat their flocks and to provide a veneer of modern respectability." There's a substantial difference between that and, "NARTH often partners with religious organizations at ex-gay and conversion therapy events." Born Gay (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding an excellent citation, i very much appreciate that sort of help, it's the best kind of material for solving these editing questions. You are correct, the material says "ally themselves with religious denominations that condemn homosexuality", and that is not the exact same thing as "partners with". Do you think a good way to edit this would be to simply make a substitution of those terms: "ally themselves etc" instead of "partners with etc"? That would sound more accurate, given your excellent sourced info. (Sorry if i didn't sound like i had AGF, please forgive my inept abilities with online fora, it's difficult sometimes to put into words on the screen what i meant to convey, in a regular conversation i promise you would have found only AGF from me, i think it's a shortcoming i have with online communication in general, making it sound as friendly and clear as my regular speaking voice.) ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph currently reads:

NARTH is a secular organization and does not use the Bible as justification for its positions. Nevertheless, NARTH often partners with religious organizations at ex-gay and conversion therapy events. For instance, at Love Won Out's November 2006 conference Joseph Nicolosi represented NARTH and spoke on "Prevention of Male Homosexuality" and on "The Condition of Male Homosexuality".

Would it be acceptable to all editors if i change that paragraph to read as follows?

NARTH is a secular organization and does not use the Bible as justification for its positions, but does ally with religious denominations that condemn homosexuality. For instance, at Love Won Out's November 2006 conference Joseph Nicolosi represented NARTH and spoke on "Prevention of Male Homosexuality" and on "The Condition of Male Homosexuality".

Thank you for your patience, i would like to be constructive and i hope this would be the correct way to edit? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this going, my computer crashed hours ago and re-writing is what makes sense. We should also add - Their website also offers a resource list of over seventy theological articles and links such as "NARTH Expert Reviews 'Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study Of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation'"[5] -- Banjeboi 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that NARTH allies with religious denominations that condemn homosexuality is almost certainly true, but it doesn't seem entirely clear. How does it ally with them exactly and which particular denominations are involved? Articles really do need to make clear and precise statements, and not to use vague language. The version you suggest would be an improvement, but it needs to be cut back to something that is fully supported by the article's sources (and Love Won Out isn't a religious "denomination" as this wording seems to imply). Sources have to be used very carefully, or else there may be a problem with original research/synthesis. Shidlo's book on conversion therapy certainly doesn't say that NARTH often partners with religious organizations at ex-gay and conversion therapy events, or anything equivalent. Pages 20 and 21 do not mention such events. Page 152 mentions one ex-gay conference attended by a therapist who was a member of NARTH, but it doesn't say that he attended in an official capacity, as a representative of NARTH, or that NARTH as an organization endorsed this event. Born Gay (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I have to conclude that this section needs to be rewritten. It isn't very helpful to say that NARTH "does not use the Bible as a justification of its positions." It would be better to express things in terms of what it does do than to say what it doesn't do (I suppose an endless list could be given of things NARTH doesn't to - but I don't see the point of one). Born Gay (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You are totally correct, i agree it should be more precise. Unfortunately i am not sufficiently familiar with the Sources; also, i am afraid my own non-neutral POV might accidentally infuse my choice of words. So i should leave this up to editors who are more detached and knowledgeable. It's such a sad topic (to me) i don't think it would be a good idea for me to try to make further improvements. Thanks for letting me into the conversation, i'll back off and hush now. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the idea that the idea that this article should be completely rewritten is a good one. Here are some of my thoughts:

• For starters, I stumbled into this realm through my efforts to improve James Dobson. I've set a personsl goal to get his BLP to FA sometime before he dies. (If you think it stinks now, you should have seen it before I started.) I don't have an axe to grind at all, but I do see a series of hot-button articles (see below) that people feel strongly about, which probably contributes to these being rather inferior and neglected articles: I think people are afraid to try and improve them because they ARE politically charged issues in the real world.
• Overall, I've seen a large amount of overlap in simlar articles that deal with the overlap between religion in general (and Christianity in specific) and homosexuality: Love Won Out, ex-gay, Exodus International. It seems like every article that deals with a Christian leader or organization who advocates "treatment" for or "recovery" from homosexuality ends up with a statement that the APA opposes such. It strikes me as a great opportunity for a single topic, with subordinate summary style articles, rather than the redundant mesh of related, overlapping, and often redundant articles we currently have.
• On content: NARTH disagrees with the APA. The APA disagrees with NARTH. The article should say this, per YESPOV, without trying to take more of a position than noting that the APA is a far larger and more mainstream position, per FRINGE. Likewise, relationships between entities, like NARTH and Love Won Out, should be accurately portrayed--synergism is different than control, and influence is difference than funding.
• I am concerned that some editors opposed to NARTH and their ilk (not necessarily including any of those involved in this discussion) may not be careful about making fine distinctions between such organizations. There's a wide spectrum that seems to get lumped together inappropriately--from NARTH, to Fred Phelps, to neo-nazi skinheads. For example, I dealt with an editor on Love Won Out at one point who was quite intent on adding an abuse allegation, but didn't notice that the organization named in the news article wasn't the same as the topic of the Wikipedia article. Such conflations and tarring everyone with the same brush doesn't really help Wikipedia's mission.

Having said all that, the proposed wording is better than the current version, but I'm not sure "ally" is the right word, either. NARTH certainly isn't opposed to religions using its materials, or to having people identifying themselves as NARTH-affiliated show up to religious events, but their "theological issues" page is just one of 8 news watch items. Using their own words may be the best alternative: "NARTH welcomes the support of all lay organizations, including religious groups, which turn to us for scientific evidence which may support their traditional doctrines. We remain, however, a professional organization devoted to scientific inquiry." (from http://narth.com/menus/history.html) Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens, I think that you are correct to see problems with this article, including the way sources are used, and so far you have come up with the best proposals for dealing with them.

I don't want to edit the article myself for the moment, but I have several suggestions for how it should be changed. Part of the lead reads, 'The practice, and by extension, NARTH has been criticised by numerous LGBT rights organizations, but is supported by some Christian right political and social lobbying groups and by the ex-gay movement.' I do not think that this is well expressed, and it seems perhaps off the main subject of the article. If NARTH has been criticised directly, then this should be mentioned, but not indirect criticism "by extension", which seems to involve too much interpretation of sources. In the sentence that reads, 'NARTH is a secular organization and does not use the Bible as justification for its positions in contrast with many of the religious-based groups that espouse the same concepts', everything after 'NARTH is a secular organization' seems unnecessary and off the main point. Not using the Bible as a justification for its positions is inherent in something being a secular organization. Regarding the sentence, 'They take part in ex-gay and conversion therapy events that are often religiously themed', the source given does not support this statement, as has been pointed out a number of times. I am sorry that the editor who supports this use of the source has simply restored it, and removed the tags added by Jclemens, without discussing matters here. I do not think there is any consensus for using this source this way. Finally, I think that environment and sexual orientation should be added to the See also list - I don't myself believe that environment has any effect on sexual orientation, but it should still be there to be in accord with NPOV. Born Gay (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There was cross edits so I apologize if I re-added a source inappropriately. I was trying to get away from the rather obscene, IMHO, over-tagging. The whole article needs work but adding 2,3,4 tags rather than just fixing a single sentence isn't serving our readers well. Sometimes we actually need to just fix a problem. -- Banjeboi 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So which would you rather me do? Fix the article, by removing assertions not supported by the references, or tag those assertions appropriately? Your call--I'll play it whichever way you prefer. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well first off we're not playing as much as trying to serve our readers. If a sentence is just harmful and untrue then it should likely be removed to talkpage for work. In this case the issue was the source didn't match the assertion and adding (maybe one?) tag would have been enough. {{failed verification}} or {{clarify}} may have done the trick. I'm not sure we have or don't readily available sourcing that NARTH is involved in religious themed ex-gay events although the statement in of itself hardly seems implausible. The real question may be how involved are they and does it really matter to the overall article. I'm not sure on either of those points but they deserve due consideration. -- Banjeboi 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shidlo/Drescher book

It's probably worth noting that Drescher (who both edits the book and wrote at least one of the articles cited) chairs "the Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues of the American Psychiatric Association"--thus his writings do not "[describe] a topic from a disinterested perspective" per WP:IS. At the same time, it's clear that he does speak for the APA, who are the majority and in opposition to NARTH.

I propose that the use of that source be clearly noted with the editor/author's affiliation, and not simply cited as if it were a neutral source on the topic. Objections? Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there are three editors and it would be better to either be clear this is true with other sources that support this view or balance it with other statements and sources that dispute this. Attribution can be fine except on a culture war article it starts to creep into ___ says this but they are a liberal and that may cause more problems than it solves. That is, it starts here but then spreads out to many cites thus degrading the article. What do you think would work, short and long-term? -- Banjeboi 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have any opinion about this at the moment. There may be a case for doing what Jclemens suggests, but as Benjiboi points out, it's also potentially problematic. It really does depend on exactly what the proposed alteration or addition is. My main concern was that the article's contents did not properly reflect the source, although Benjiboi's recent changes have mostly dealt with that problem. The current version is better, and definitely closer to the source (although it may still require a little more reworking and adjustment - eg the word "some" should probably be added to the sentence, 'NARTH members take part in ex-gay and conversion therapy activities with religious themes'). Born Gay (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get into a culture war issue here. As long as we're all willing to make sure all viewpoints are represented fairly, I think it's fair to devote a good part of the article to APA opposition to NARTH, because they are certainly the majority viewpoint. Per WP:SPS, it's also allowable to source NARTH's take on their own beliefs to their website. That is, let NARTH's sources speak to NARTH's take on the dispute, and let mainstream sources like this one represent the mainstream/APA view. There may BE no middle ground here, but by following FRINGE and YESPOV, we can still construct a good, NPOV article on this contentious topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Secular sentence

Borngay notes in a previous thread - "In the sentence that reads, 'NARTH is a secular organization and does not use the Bible as justification for its positions in contrast with many of the religious-based groups that espouse the same concepts', everything after 'NARTH is a secular organization' seems unnecessary and off the main point. Not using the Bible as a justification for its positions is inherent in something being a secular organization."

This perhaps could be worded better, and likely the whole article at some point should be reworked, at least, but the ex-gay and reparative therapy movements seem to be intertwined with religious conservatism with NARTH serving as the professional affiliation group. To me it seems relevant to distinguish that NARTH doesn't state these Biblical justifications but the religious ones sure do. This is core to those groups motivations for engaging in this practice. -- Banjeboi 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel that the word "secular" requires the additional explanation that is in the article. It might seem helpful to point out that NARTH doesn't justify it's positions using the Bible, but I wonder where this ends? Should the article also mention that NARTH doesn't justify its positions using the Book of Mormon? This isn't meant to be a joke - there has been quite a lot of speculation and rumours about Mormon influence on NARTH, so someone might well argue that this should be there too. Born Gay (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "NARTH is" is taking them too much at their own word. "NARTH's website states that they are a secular organization, but..." seems perfectly fine to me. I don't think I've seen an independent RS call NARTH secular, but there may be one out there somewhere. 04:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Sources

The third sentence of the article is currently, '"Reparative" or "Conversion" therapy has been "identified by mainstream mental health organizations as a pseudoscience", and is "based on faulty assumptions which have never been empirically validated"' Both of the statements within inverted commas look as though they are quotations from the source, the article by Haldeman. Neither of these statements in fact appears in that article. Haldeman does say something quite similar to the second of the two statements, although he does not use the exact language that is made to look as though it was being quoted from him. The first statement is simply incorrect. Mainstream mental health organizations have criticised conversion therapy in many ways, but they have not identified it as a pseudoscience, and nor does Haldeman say they have. Born Gay (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would look to if another source actually quotes that as it may simply be that a source got deleted in error. Otherwise fix it as appropriate seems fine to me. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there was a source that got deleted, but I think that probably isn't the case. It looks to me more like someone attributing something to a source that isn't there - and note that I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately misrepresenting anything; it just seems like a careless bit of editing. Born Gay (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the sources state is the way we should go, conversion therapy article likely has what's most accurate. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think that there might be a problem with the accuracy of the conversion therapy article, it would be best to discuss the matter on that article's talk page. This issue does need to be resolved eventually. I see that user:Matisse recently added the pseudoscience category to this article, based, I suppose on what is probably a misinterpreted source. That wasn't really a helpful thing to do while the issue of the article's accuracy and how to fix it is still being discussed. Actually, if there are good grounds for using the pseudoscience category, it would have been better to add it to the Conversion therapy article first, rather than this article. There isn't any logic to declaring that NARTH is pseudoscience, when the conversion therapy article itself doesn't even say that conversion therapy is pseudoscience. Born Gay (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience has a definition. If either Conversion therapy or National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality presents itself as a legitimate therapy or psychotherapy, and there is no scientific consensus that it is effective, then it is a pseudoscience or a fringe science. My goal is to make sure that therapies that are pseudoscience or fringe science do not get included in Category:Psychotherapy. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, to qualify as a legitimate therapy, the article must follow WP:MEDRS in its sourcing standards. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that pseudoscience, like any other contested category, has numerous different definitions. It does have a single definition on Wikipedia, but that is not relevant, as Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source and partly for that reason cannot use itself as a source. More importantly, editors cannot add the pseudoscience category to an article simply because in their judgment something meets that or any other definition of pseudoscience, not even if their judgment is correct, since our goal is verifiability, not truth. We need reliable sources to show that there is agreement in the scientific community that conversion therapy is a pseudoscience. As far as I'm aware, these sources do not exist. Even if such sources do exist, I stand by my point that it would have been more logical to add the pseudoscience category to the conversion therapy article first rather than this one. I suggest that you revert yourself here if you aren't planning to add the pseudoscience category there as well.

Regarding not including Conversion therapy in category psychotherapy, I have to say I find that puzzling. Mainstream mental health organizations are very critical of it, but there appears to be no question that in their view it is indeed a form of psychotherapy (albeit an unproven and questionable one). The category page states that, 'Psychotherapy is a set of techniques believed to cure or to help solve behavioral and other psychological problems in humans. The common part of these techniques is direct personal contact between therapist and patient, often in the form of talking.' I suppose the key question here is, believed by whom? There's always someone to say that he believes some form of psychotherapy is effective. If there has to be proof that the therapy actually is effective to go in that category, then it is extremely questionable whether anything belongs there. Born Gay (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the category, because NARTH is an organization not a theory. Even if there were an RS that called NARTH pseudoscientists, it's not clear that NARTH would fit under the category's own definition. Agreed that if anything fits there, it would be conversion therapy. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens that probably conversion therapy fits under Category:Pseudoscience. I was going to included NARTH under something like "Category:Advocacy organizations" but I could not find the category. Also, I am not clear what their role is in pushing this one type of discredited therapy. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

APA's "ruling"

Is it correct to call the APA's statement (mentioned in the opening paragraph) a "ruling." They are not a court or other government body. Is there some other word that might be better? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Statement or position seem to be reasonably accurate and simple, but there might be a better way to phrase it. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed it and Phoenix_of9 (talk) reverted my edit. He explained his reason in his edit summary. I invite him to come to the talk page I referenced in my edit summary and discuss it here. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that position would be more accurate since the APA is a private organization. If the AMA takes a certain position on abortion, that position is not considered a set-in-stone part of law. A court decision or decision by a legislative body is necessary for that. Your comments would be appreciated.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Position, position statement, stance... all are better wordings than "ruling". Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ruling: "an authoritative decision or pronouncement." [6]

Ruling implies authority. In the USA, American Psychiatric Association is the sole authority about what is a mental disorder or not. It also publishes DSM. Since NARTH is an organization in the US, "ruling" is appropriate. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. While it might be a reasonable if imprecise word to use, the entire point of NARTH is that it disputes the APA's pronouncement, so calling the APA's position a "ruling" is inherently POV. Besides, rulings are citable. Which precise ruling are you saying should be cited? The simple removal of homosexuality from the DSM--which happened in stages--isn't itself a ruling; you'd need something more specific and concrete. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NARTH is a fringe organization. Sayin Narth's "position" is different than APA's "position" and hence giving equal weight to both is POV. 2 people are not a consensus. Wikipedia is not your battleground for propaganda. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling NPOV a fringe organization in the lead violates WP:MORALIZE. Please stop edit warring--the article makes it clear that NARTH holds a viewpoint not supported by the APA, there's no need to abandon NPOV to say as much, since a reader will pick up on that directly anyways. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not NARTH is a fringe organization, using the word "position" is better than using the word "ruling." APA is a private organization that has taken a position on the issue. Theirs is different than the opinion of a court or governmental legislative body. Their opinion could be cited in court, but the government is free to make a ruling that disagrees. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The way to solve this is to refer to the APA's own wording. How did they describe their decision? Born Gay (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But interesting idea. Would we do the same for some organization that is not the APA? Or would we be giving special recognition to the APA by defining everything on their terms? You are correct, though, that this info could help us think of how to put this. Does anybody know how they described their decision? Any other suggestions would be appreciated. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea. At the very least, the APA's statement can be directly quoted, making it clear that any POV involved is theirs, rather than the encyclopedia's. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The information about this is available here http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf. The APA issued what it described as a position statement on the issue. It didn't use the word "ruling." There's no reason not to use the APA's own language. Born Gay (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Thanks for the info, Born Gay. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"NARTH on conversion therapy"

The article's opening paragraph states that NARTH

"supports the use of conversion therapy to change sexual orientations of lesbian, gay and bisexual people."

I find that neither of the linked sources supports this claim. There may be individual members who advocate conversion therapy, but does the group as a whole advocate its use? Dwarfdivision (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NARTH as a whole definitely does advocate conversion therapy. It's a conversion therapy organization. Advocating conversion therapy is what conversion therapy organizations do. Just take a look at its website. Born Gay (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly POV

This entire article seems to be out to slam the position of NARTH. It is clearly biased against the organization and unencyclopedic. This article is not about the validity of the idea that sexual orientation can be changed, but about an organization who holds such a claim. A single controversy section would be sufficient to say that some disagree with NARTH's position. Also the fact that NARTH is secular does not mean that someone who is a Christian cannot be a member. Secular only means that it does not have a religious worldview as an organizational whole, not that all members are nonreligious. Could someone please balance out this article? Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you see something that you think is wrong with the article, then you're free to change it, so long as you edit in accord with NPOV and other policies. Born Gay (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding criticism in the lead summary

There needs to be criticism, however in it's current state it does not fit within the form of a legitimate encyclopedic article. Criticism is currently thrown in haphazardly at various places in the article regardless of whether they are appropriate to the section they are placed in. A prime example is the two paragraphs of criticism in the lead section. The criticism here is two or three times larger than the summary of the organization itself. This takes the article out of focus in my opinion. I know NARTH and its activities are polarizing, and people are eager to pile on(in good faith) as much criticism as they can. However, we cannot allow the encyclopedic form of the article to be compromised just because people hate the group- criticism in the lead summary should be _summaries_ of the criticism. Leave the full-on critical dissertation to the main article itself. For illustration, please take a look at the lead section of another popularly detested subject of a wikipedia article- Osama bin Laden.

This is the reasoning behind my edit, and if you object, I invite (cordial) discussion and dispute of my reasoning. Grazie, BabyJonas (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually this group is mainly known for conversion therapy - that may presently be changing but that is what they are primarily known for - which is a controversial and widely disputed practice. Per NPOV we are suppose to cover notable criticism in the lede. There may be a case how to best present it but we cannot deceive our readers as to nature of the practice and how is is discredited by all major medical groups. This is akin to a BLP on someone who believes in a fringe theory - if all major scientific evidence disputes the theory are the person is known in relation t the theory we are bound to report that. Not bury as far down as possible. -- Banjeboi 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A look at the Narth website here, shows they are about more than conversion therapy. If you need clarification please ask. In addition, note that I support the inclusion of full-frontal criticism in the main body of the article, and a summary of the criticism in the lead. I do not believe that the current inclusion of critism in the lead section qualifies as a summary appropriate for a lead section. Also, without wishing to get too bogged down in semantics, Wikipedia:Lede indicates that notable criticism should be mentioned, which I do not take to mean expounded on as if it were the section devoted to it. I hope that you, me or anybody else could either rewrite the criticism to be more consistent with a lead section or summarize it and move the paragraphs down to the criticism section. Let me know which option works the best for you. Cheers. BabyJonas (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion had been untouched for about a month so I went ahead and added a couple sentences of brief criticism to the lead. I hope that they are sufficient - they are somewhat repetitive of information in the "Opposing veiws" section, so further edits may be necessary to make the article sound less redundant, but they can at least serve as a temporary solution. UranianPoet 00:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur A. Goldberg

Since he has his own article, can we please move the vast majority of the new section (which is now adequately sourced) to that article? Right now, it appears WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone posits a good reason for this coverage, I'm going to merge this section into that article once that AfD is closed as keep. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it even warrants mention in the article. I haven't found anyone outside the Ex-Gay Watch circle who considers it a controversy. Additionally, the label of con-man sounds like POV considering he served his term and was released almost 20 years ago. Is there any Wikipedia protocol on what exactly constitutes a controversy for an organization? BabyJonas (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you have been very sloppy in your research (or just plain lazy). Look again. And this time, make an HONEST effort. The label of "con-man" when a person is actually convicted of a crime, is APPROPRIATE. Of course you may actually have to look something up in order to verify this definition. It will of course be easier to lie and say that you have been unable to verify this as well. Lou2u (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed

“ Arthur "Abba" Goldberg, a convicted con-man, is Executive Secretary of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and is also President of PATH. Goldberg plead guilty to one count of conspiracy and fraud in a plea deal in 1989. Goldberg also plead guilty to three counts of mail fraud for playing the key role in a bond-fraud scandal dating back to 1987. Goldberg plead guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Goldberg was originally indited on charges that ranged from federal mail and wire fraud to conspiracy counts as a result of a bogus bond writing scheme. He was sentenced to eighteen months in prison in the Central District of California, which he served concurrently with an Illinois sentence imposed at the same time for bilking impoverished communities in the United States and Guam as part of a fraudulent bond scheme.

The U.S. attorney who convicted Goldberg, K. William O’Connor said, at sentencing Goldberg was “a man who habitually took advantage of people who were economically dependent upon him; that he did not hesitate to lie or cheat or cover up to achieve his criminal aim. His greed has cause incalculable harm... Goldberg’s deceitfulness crippled Guam’s economy, crushed investors, undermined public confidence in the bond industry, and cost the U.S. Treasury millions in lost taxes".

At his sentencing on September 26, 1989, Judge Curtis stated, “that, Arthur Abba Goldberg, you have openly conspired against the United States by knowingly and recklessly engaging indifferently in a series of dishonest acts of considerable magnitude.”

Goldberg was disbarred in 1995 by The New Jersey Supreme Court citing his criminal convictions and his “reckless indifference to a conspiracy of considerable magnitude.”

”

I've removed this per BLP, POV, SOAP, etc as it really seems to only serve disparaging someone while not explaining why it's even in this article. Trimmed of the character assassination bits some may be useful in his bio then some may actually be useful in other articles. I think we should be careful what is reinserted into this article. -- Banjeboi 15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can show how stating something is documented fact is character assassination, I will be restoring this. This is the man that NARTH has chosen to be their executive secretary. His actions have been clearly documented. Lou2u (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to add this piece back, please make sure the weight it's given in the article is given proportional weight to the subject of the article. BabyJonas (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose the inclusion here on the grounds that it receives due weight in his own article, which has solidly survived AfD, and wikilinking there is sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. It would definitely avoid repeating the same content all over again. BabyJonas (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't notable that convicted con-men are on the board of directors of agencies receiving public monies as non-profits. Lord knows that shouldn't carry any weight especially considering how the agency has been surrounded by controversy and fraud. Ludicrous. Lou2u (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lou. You said something in two places but I'll respond here. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an activism hub or a place to needlessly denigrate a person or organization for whatever reason. I mentioned I don't mind the inclusion of the Goldberg controversy as long as it's within the framework of NPOV, BLP and particularly WP:Undue. Undue Weight is a recurring problem with this article, with a lot of contributors eager to add criticism but rarely willing to expand on the rest of the article. I think at one point the Criticisms/Controversies section constituted half of the entire article. As long as we are mindful of the article as a whole and not focused solely on adding criticism I think you will really have little to complain about. BabyJonas (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point. Thank you for expanding on your reasoning. I actually don't consider myself to be any kind of activist. I do have a problem with ANY abuse of an individual under the guise of a non-profit. Perhaps because of this my edit appears to be heavy handed. I have asked previously how this should be included in the NARTH article with a redirect over to the Arthur A Goldberg page. No one has ever made suggestions or responded (simply removing the passage altogether). That has been a true source of irritation to me since it seems like an attempt to whitewash factual information (for whatever reason). I no longer think that this is the reasoning behind the removal; nevertheless, I do think that the information should be included in the NARTH article (briefly, and then with a redirect). I have asked before what could be construed as POV or BLP and have gotten no help on how this could be rewritten whatsoever. Help and constructive suggestions will be appreciated. Lou2u (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I don't think anybody is trying to white-wash this group at all. In fact it's quite the opposite. Nevertheless there are some others who think this info doesn't warrant inclusion. I'll let them chime in. BabyJonas (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think some mention should be included but watch for due weight. The Goldberg bio is relatively ok and that same info can be included here in some form. We allege he was hiding that he was same person as who was involved for fraud case but I'm not sure if that has been sourced or should be reworded. Additionally some of the sources above may be helpful over there. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Having no mention of his involvement with NARTH in the article (not even a link to his main page!) seems sort of silly and less than useful. I came here having read this article looking for details, but had to look in the talk page to find them: [7] 70.190.254.5 (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What does NARTH agree with the APA on?

From the APA page:

"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

"It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people."

From the NARTH website:

"NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.

"But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences."

To me, it looks like NARTH is indeed quoting a previous version of the page referenced, or something substantially similar to it. The main point of the entire argument seems to be that NARTH picks and chooses what from the APA's position it endorses. I think that's a fair thing to say, and reflects the primary sources without synthesis. Wording can certainly be modified, but I don't see it as a positive change to try and remove that quote of NARTH's position, doubly so given its rational (if POV) basis in what the APA itself says. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"quote of APA must not be misinterpreted and/or shortened by POV source, clinical reports by several other mainstream professional associations supported by references are more relevant here"

I don't see any misinterpretation going on. I'd love to hear exactly what is being misinterpreted and how. BabyJonas (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people." versus "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? - There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Thus, clearly, I have to remove the statement per a manipulation basis. If you don't agree, take Request for comment opportunity. --Destinero (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote you are referring to states that there is no consensus about the "exact" reasons for the development of sexual orientation, or any findings strong enough to "conclude" on any "particular factors". Which is true, but isn't what the portion is referring to at all; Narth and the APA's area of agreement comes under much broader terms. The APA believes that "a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors" influence sexual orientation, while Narth believes that "biological, psychological and social factors" influences sexual orientation. It's subtle and I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't catch it at first, but a careful reading of the material reveals that they do indeed agree in principle. BabyJonas (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh... I'd say that reality resembled something more along the lines that NARTH, finding that the APA lists environmental factors as a possible cause of homosexuality, seizes upon that, blows it out of proportion, and says, "See, the APA agree with us in part!" Which is something we can, and should, include. I think a three part analysis is probably in order:

• APA says...
• NARTH says they agree...
• Others repudiate NARTH's statement.

Right now, we've been going back in forth between the first two (old state) and the last two (proposed change). How about we try and incorporate all three? Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

NARTH says they agree is self-serving. Statements should be separated for responsible bodies and not create of illusion to present what one body sais about the other body sais when we can present both individually. --Destinero (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Self-published and/or questionable source (NARTH) cannot be used as sources of information about others, since it is obviously undully self-serving and it does involve claims about third parties. "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three." Thus, resolved. --Destinero (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's circular reasoning. NARTH differentiates itself from the APA, so anything they say that adapts or extends what the APA says is unduly self serving? That rationale is insufficient to Wp:CENSOR a group's own statements. We can say "NARTH says the APA says...", that's perfectly fine. The suppression of a source, however, is not an acceptable outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I find all the accusations of manipulation and self-serving somewhat ad hominem and POV. I don't see a legitimate argument for the quote being self-serving. In fact, I see the APA's criteria and Narth's criteria as virtually identical so a claim of agreement is not farfetched. Let's just put things in context; The section we are talking about is intended to define Narth's beliefs and positions. Why can't we just say "Narth believes they agree with the APA on....." and end it at that? It will clarify that this is how they characterize their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyJonas (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. --Destinero (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead content

Per WP:UNDUE, there's simply no justification for having two sentences critical of NARTH in a lead of this length. If you think the emphasis of the one that's there needs to change, fine, change it. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

“ In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points. ”

One sentence explains that no major organization supports those views. The other sentence explains that "NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish". Those are 2 different things. How can that be WP:UNDUE? Phoenix of9 03:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I went over the sentence in question:

No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.

I don't know if the problem is that it's critical or it just doesn't sound encyclopedic. If the intention is to portray the group as a minority viewpoint, it would be better to state as much. The sentence just sounds like an arbitrary fact that is not demonstrably connected to the main topic. One alternative could be:

As a group, Narth's positions on the nature and therapeutic response to homosexuality differ from most mainstream psychological organizations such as [insert list of groups]. These groups oppose Narth's positions and activities, believing they are not sufficiently supported by scientific evidence and promote discrimination.

I think it's better for the lede because it avoids the burden of verifying absolutes such as "No group has sanctioned" and "virtually all". It implies that the positions on both sides simply reflect current opinions. We can easily expound on the details of the differences in the body. Is this a good start? BabyJonas (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No mainstream psychological organizations supports NARTH. Phoenix of9 05:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There has to be an encyclopedic way to say that. If you just say "No mainstream psychological organizations support NARTH." it's unclear what kind of support you are referring to and how and why it is relevant to Narth. BabyJonas (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation." is encyclopedic. Phoenix of9 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix. I've already made it clear that I think the wording in that sentence needs to be changed. Making absolute negative statements like "No group has xyz" requires a pretty high standard of proof in terms of encyclopedic content. "Virtually" is also a fuzzy sort of word that I don't think sounds very encyclopedic. Do you still have the source for that sentence? BabyJonas (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the two allegedly separate statements, and in addition to BabyJonas's critique of the phrasing, the second statement almost entirely subsumes the first. If no mainstream group endorses it AND multiple mainstream groups have concerns about it, that can be succinctly summed up in one sentence. The fact that multiple mainstream groups oppose it is really all we need to say, because (as BabyJonas points out) it's far more difficult to prove a negative (no one endorses it) than a positive (multiple, specific groups oppose it). Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a pretty high standard of proof in terms of encyclopedic content for that sentence: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf Thus, resolved and fixed. --Destinero (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

... and reverted again as UNDUE. Please read WP:LEAD and the rest of the discussion. Add content to the body, summarize that content in the lead. One sentence detailing with varies criticisms of NARTH is sufficient for the lead. Note also that this is not Homosexuality and psychology, such that general criticisms about the danger or efficacy of conversion therapy, etc., are irrelevant WP:COATRACKs. By all means, let's write a good, balanced article on NARTH, but filling the lead with UNDUE COATRACKs is not the way to do it. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Rolled you back again. Please read the above paragraph and improve your addition accordingly, rather than edit warring. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BabyJonas, "No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation." is sourced and hence encyclopedic. Jclemens, I made it one sentence. Phoenix of9 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to expand more in the body of the article, though. The "one sentence" request applies only to the lead. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence comes with a source, but the citation is incomplete, when referring to a specific passage in a book, book chapter or article one must provide a page number or numbers as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead is:

"There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."

That indeed is the position of APA and the Royal College of Psychiatrists (which are referenced by that sentence), who are not required to have NPOV. We should either change the sentence to attribute it to APA and the Royal College, or remove it. I would favor removal, because it is redundant with the immediately preceding sentence and is better covered in NARTH#Position of professional organizations on sexual orientation change efforts. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I took that out (bot should re-add the refs elsewhere presently), and trimmed up a bunch of the other verbiage. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for information about NARTH's Sigmund Freud Award

Hello! I just added a section about NARTH's Sigmund Freud Award. As I understand, this is an annual award but I have not been able to find records of all the recipients. I wrote to NARTH about this and they said that they have no published list of either the recipients and the spokesman stated that he is not aware of any published material explicitly describing the founding of the award process, judging criteria, or any purpose of the award.

Looking around NARTH's website, it seems to me that in 2008 someone went through their offline electronic archives and dumped a lot of old press onto the site with little sorting. I searched through that and found only these recipients. With the award having begun in 1996 and me only finding five names, the list is quite incomplete. If anyone finds any sources of data on this award, could you please post here? Thanks, Blue Rasberry 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In 1903, Sigmund Freud writes in the Viennese newspaper, Die Zeit, that "I am . . . of the firm conviction that homosexuals must not be treated as sick people, for a perverse orientation is far from being a sickness. Would that not oblige us to characterize as sick many great thinkers and scholars of all times, whose perverse orientation we know for a fact and whom we admire precisely because of their mental health? Homosexual persons are not sick." Mike Hayes (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Mike. I wrote and called NARTH represenatatives on the phone some time ago and they were polite and thorough in researching and telling me that they retained no records about the history of their award, including recipients or how the award got its name. They did tell me that they had produced documentation in the past, and said that I might search the web to find someone who had it. I also wonder why it is called the Freud award and would like a source for their reasoning. Blue Rasberry 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

NARTH Essay

This is my first ever contribution to WP (aside from enthusiastic monetary donations!), so I'll be brief, and hope I'm using correct format, etc. I just noticed that on 10 May 2010, NARTH added an essay titled "Anti-Gay?!" by their current President, Julie Hamilton, reading, in part,

"NARTH does not view homosexuality as mental illness; rather, homosexuality is an adaptation that

is distressful for some people. Another inaccurate description is "conversion" therapy, a term not

used by NARTH members."

The full essay is here: http://www.narth.com/docs/addresses.html Her essay reads like propaganda, but may also reflect a change in NARTH's position, which should in turn be reflected in the WP article, I would think. I won't mind if my contribution here is deleted as unhelpful. Just offering. Sti11w4ter (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You sound so shy! No, of course no one is going to delete your comment. There is a rule on Wikipedia that says, "Be bold!" and that is what you are doing, so thanks for writing!

I would be happy to help you with anything you want to do, but let's talk more about what you are thinking because there might be a problem. There is a rule against original research and more specifically, against synthesis. It's cool to quote what NARTH said in the past, and it's cool to quote what they say now, but to state or even suggest that they made a change in policy would be against the rules unless you had a reliable source which did that social critique and noted the difference. Do you completely understand what is going on, and why the rules are this way?

That aside, if you feel the quote above is helpful to explaining NARTH, then I agree that it seems like a strong position statement which might not be adequately presented otherwise in the article. Should we could include it as it is? Would you like to be bold and try to insert it somewhere?

Thoughts? Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia! Blue Rasberry 02:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links

Per Wikipedia:DEADLINK, this policy pertains to "references and citations." The governing policy for dead links for the Ext. Links section is wp:External links which says "dead links should either be updated or removed. Note however, that the matter is different for references." Lionel (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Their journal is not peer-reviewed. Frankly, I don't even need a source to impeach it, because it was a violation of WP:SPS for us to have taken NARTH at its word, particularly when we have multiple sources in the article making it clear that it goes against the scientific mainstream. I'm going to revert that change now. Dylan Flaherty 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I'm not sure it is entirely clear what you are saying. Assuming that you are saying that NARTH articles are not appropriately peer reviewed and cannot therefore be taken as representing academic findings, then I wholeheartedly agree. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Yes, I'm saying it's not peer-reviewed. All we have is NARTH itself claiming this, and we have reliable sources that refute this. Dylan Flaherty 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the recent back-and-forth edit, I would add that it is appropriate in the context of this article to add to the lead that NARTH articles are not peer-reviewed. This makes them junk, although that additional information should not be added unless it can be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "junk". Dylan Flaherty 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't so hard, was it? If another editor takes something out as OR, you must restore it with a source, no matter how obvious or self-evident you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call both you of you. Blue Rasberry 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad it's settled, but I'm wondering how the false claim got there in the first place, in clear violation of WP:SPS. The burden was should have been on the proof, not the disproof. Dylan Flaherty 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not settled. The current version unnecessarily attributes the statement, making it sound like it's just an opinion. In fact, we cannot claim that it's peer-reviewed in the first place, because we have only NARTH as the source of that claim. In other words, even if Besen had remained silent, we would have to remove the claim because it's unsupported. As it turns out, Besen is hardly the only person to notice that the claim is false, but this issue is already settled on rules alone, without any need to bring in additional sources.

Unless Jclemens addresses this issue adequately, I will be forced to remove their change. Dylan Flaherty 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what "false claim" are you referring to? this simply added the unsourced "non peer reviewed" caveat, which was not sourced. There was no assertion that the material was peer reviewed, and I agree that had there been one, it would have needed a cite.

On the other hand Wayne Besen is hardly a neutral source. Look at his article--he's an absolute anti-ex-gay partisan. While the citation is indeed in a newspaper (albeit one that I've never heard of), the author clearly has his own agenda. The addition fully follows WP:INTEXT, and its omission would give the reader the improper impression that some neutral third party had pronounced NARTH's research non-peer-reviewed. Of course, if there was such a neutral party, replacing Besen would also eliminate the problem.

I'm perfectly fine taking it all out and going back to status quo ante--All I did was revert the inclusion of an unsourced assertion by an IP address. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The NARTH site claims it's peer-reviewed and we referred to it as scholarly, which endorsed that view. However, this claim is clearly unsupported and we have a RS saying it's false. Based on other RS which state that no peer-reviewed studies support NARTH's overall mission, I'm going to conclude that it's almost certainly not a peer-reviewed journal.

Please be very, very careful about even implying the phrase "gay agenda", as it's offensive. The idea that we should downgrade a reliable journalistic source because of his background is in contradiction to the rules. We frequently use partisan news source -- all of Fox, for example -- in our articles. That's not a basis to unnecessarily attribute facts. Dylan Flaherty 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So why not just add a note that the claim of scholarship is sourced to NARTH? Would that not be sufficient? On the topic of Wayne Besen, please feel free to read his article, and the external links completely. No one has said anything about a "gay agenda", Besen characterizes himself as a partisan against poor and biased science, which includes NARTH. He's not just a journalist by any objective evaluation; this isn't like citing Fox News, it's more like citing Pat Buchanan. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We couldn't do that without also pointing out that this claim is, as far as we can tell, entirely false.

Plenty of Fox journalists aren't "just" journalists -- consider Glenn Beck, if you like -- but we don't treat them as third-rate sources just because of that. Dylan Flaherty 04:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can list a claim without asserting its falsehood. We state the claim, note that it's a self-made claim, and leave it at that. Anything requires a source, and if you want to go beyond what the source (NARTH) says, you need another source. Non-trivial observations by Wikipedia editors are inherently OR. In the few minutes between my post and your reply, I doubt you've had time to look at the Besen article with any detail. Seriously, peruse it and make up your own mind. Besen's critiques of NARTH belong, but not unlabeled and not as a presumptively neutral source. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot, because it would violate WP:SPS. NARTH is not a reliable source about its own journal meeting the standard for peer review. Likewise, Besen is a reliable source, despite not being a neutral one. Dylan Flaherty 05:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up a bit more on that. NARTH is a perfectly valid source for the fact they claim to produce scholarly research, per WP:SELFPUB. They don't get a free pass to be treated like they speak without bias, just like Besen doesn't. c.f. WP:YESPOV. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We certainly can't state that NARTH's journal is peer-reviewed, as it conflicts with "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". We could mention that they claim it, but WP:NPOV requires us to also make room for reliable sources that contest this assertion.

Moreover, the part telling us to "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" means that we have to clearly give NARTH very low prominence as compared to, say, the American Psychological Association, which dismissed NARTH's views in this recent report. Frankly, at this point, NARTH is less credible than Besen or Burroway.

Essentially, if any sane reader can scan through the article and come up with the idea that the journal might be peer-reviewed, we're guilty of lying to them. Dylan Flaherty 06:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit over the top. Right now, the article has a claim, it's impeached, and the impeaching source's relationship to the topic is clearly articulated. If you want to find a neutral source to replace Besen with, that's fine. But a biased opinion, regardless of its accuracy or how other sources view it, has to be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It's awkward the way it's worded now, but balanced. The goal here is to write a balanced article about NARTH, right? Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree. According to WP:RS in general and WP:RSMED in specific, the APA's view should be accepted as pretty much factual, and it contradicts NARTH's claims. I think we need to bring up the claim (with attribution) only to shoot it down with the APA and then do a jig on its grave with Besen and Burroway. I'd still consider that to be underkill, but it would at least be a start. Dylan Flaherty 08:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're creeping the scope here. If NARTH says they do scholarly research, it's perfectly OK to say "NARTH says they do scholarly research". That says nothing about the integrity, reception, or legitimacy of that research--it's simply a neutral way to repeat what the organization says its own goals are. The place to criticize NARTH's publications isn't in their self-described list of activities, is it? RSMED does not apply in any way, shape, or form to the part of the article where we describe what NARTH says it does. There are a bazillion organizations who claim to do research or scholarship whose output is not accepted by the greater scientific community. We don't write articles that state "X's mission statement claims they do research, but Y and Z say they're a bunch of crackpots". If you're looking to "shoot it down", then I ask again: The goal here is to write a balance article about NARTH, right? Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have imagined that, between talking about dancing a jig on their grave and then calling this underkill, it would have been fairly clear that there was an attempt at humor through intentional hyperbole. My apologies for underestimating the gap caused by the lack of facial expressions, tone of voice and other context.

Let's try this again, more straightforwardly. First, why would we even repeat NARTH's likely false claim in the first place? Dylan Flaherty 12:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough--because this is an article on one specific organization, NARTH, and any article on a notable organization should cover the organization's own stated goals essentially uncritically. That is, we don't need cover scandal and controversy in the same breath that we repeat the primarily sourced goals. It's not homosexuality and psychology, for instance, where it is absolutely appropriate to delve into the nuances of the debate, nor even a "reception" or "criticism" section within this article. Every notable organization, no matter what their stripe, should get a fair repetition of their goals, neutrally stated. What the IP started and you've continued is an effort to deny the organization that single sentence of "breathing room". I realize NARTH is an organization that provokes a lot of strong emotions in many editors, but that doesn't mean we can write a non-NPOV article about them. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Call me an optimist, but I like to imagine that we're all trying for an NPOV article but have different ideas on how to get there. For example, I do understand why, all things being equal, we would want to repeat NARTH's statements about its journal. But if we take a step back and forget all the wikirules, it's painfully obvious that this statement is false. Why would we want to report something that we know to be false without ever mentioning the falseness? I'm sorry, but while I may not understand Wikipedia's legal system, this confounds common sense. Dylan Flaherty 02:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple of good essays that cover the topic: WP:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:Let the reader decide. They're linked from the NPOV policy itself, and provide general classes. Remember that no matter how obvious is to you, there are probably billions of people who see things differently. NARTH represents a non-mainstream point of view... but one held sincerely by real people, no matter what one might think of them. They get extended as much courtesy as anyone else around here, no matter how distasteful their views. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To a significant extent, I hold NARTH's view. Where we differ is that I have absolutely no willingness to lie for my cause. If anything, each time NARTH lies, it undermines the cause.

In any case, I'll go read. Dylan Flaherty 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Activities section, wording

Hello all, I'd like your opinion on this sentence: "NARTH's activities include providing referrals to conversion therapists, conducting research, hosting lectures, publishing scholarly literature, distributing literature". Here's mine (and it's primarily in regards to the use of the word "scholarly"):

• It's "provided" by a primary source
• There's no supporting cites indicating the literature has been reviewed, deemed in any way scholarly, criticized, praised, etc.

My suggestion is removal of the word "scholarly" until someone can find a secondary source that claims their literature is scholarly; as opposed to "marketing", or "opinion", or innumerable other descriptors that can equally be applied with as good of an unbiased source. I can't find any such - and no one else seems interested in doing so or able to. I can find sources who call it far different things than "scholarly", but I don't think they are worthy of inclusion either, even though they at least are not primary sources. It's not for us to determine the type and quality of their literature, nor for us to take their word for it. Heck, that section (and this article as a whole) looks like an ad someone tried Wikifying (though at least, with everyone's efforts, it has gotten a lot better). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scholarly" was discussed at length in the section above. The consensus was that "NARTH is a perfectly valid source for the fact they claim to produce scholarly research, per WP:SELFPUB." If you want to revisit this we should probably notify the editors from the previous consensus. Keeping in mind that consensus can change, at this time that doesn't seem to be the case. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad interpretation. SELFPUB refers to information about oneself - not opinion about oneself or opinion about the quality of one's work. Any other interpretation is absurd, as we'd have to use self pub fancruft in albums, about songs, and about any other BLP. As a matter of fact, it's been successfully argued that BLP rules apply as this is discussing the quality of work of living people (named or unnamed does not matter since there is sufficient context to determine who's work) - in which case a secondary source must be used, or as noted innumerable places, the word "scholarly" must be clearly cited (with the easiest way being a direct quote) to the "self" involved so that it is obvious it is their opinion of their work or of themself.

"Scholarly" is a quantifier that invokes an opinion (not information) on the type and quality of the literature, and cannot be cited to the author of such. And again, in this, besides SELFPUB and such, BLP is pretty direct on such cannot be included unless cited to a secondary reliable source, regardless of whether it is positive, negative or neutral. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Better to just say "NARTH describes its activities as..." and leave it at that per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It's clear to all that NARTH claims to produce scholarly research, and this fact is independent of its quality or reception by the academic community. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, as seemed to be where everyone was leading above. Which is why I am not sure why it keeps getting changed back to the contested version. :-/ Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

(1) The source in the Truth Wins Out section does not support the quote. It doesn't say that it was started because of NARTH. Can we find another source for it? (2) There a hundred other groups that have popped up fighting NARTH, how do we know TWO is the only group that deserves to be mentioned in the article? What about others? (3) Does the Rekers story count as criticism? Or is it just notable for tabloid fodder? I'm of a mind to remove it, but if anyone has a good reason to keep it under criticism, I'd like to hear it. BabyJonas (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. More importantly the source is Besen, and Besen and TWO are same. IOW this is a primary source--we need a better source for this kind of criticism. It should be removed.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the Sigmund Freud Award?

The "annual" prize, seems to be quite irregulary, 1997-1999, 2003 and after 2004 until today, there is no mentioning of any recipients, no mentioning that it ended, nor for any reason NOT to give it those years? Its a lot of years (only 5 of those "annual" awards in the 16 years from 1996 until today) (26 May 2012) I have also searched their own site for ANYTHING about the award those years, but its like its never existed!.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.231.230 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I Noticed that they sometimes changes the name of the "Sigmund Freud award" to "Presidents award", added that info, and put in the winners of that in the list (I also noticed that they give themself, or people they hire, the prize (under either name) rather often!).213.100.190.38 (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

President's Award and BLP concern

I note that the President's Award list has been fleshed out, but that most of the listings have no source. Given that NARTH is a controversial organization, and given that people have rejected the award in the past, the statement that they were given the award is a matter of WP:BLP concern. Does someone have a source on these listings? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Anything unsourced or only sourced to NARTH (primary source) should be removed. I don't think this exhaustive list is needed anyway, as these awards don't seem to be particularly notable. - MrX 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tax Exempt Status Revoked

The organization's tax exempt status has been revoked by the IRS. SEE: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayRevocation.do?dispatchMethod=displayRevokeInfo&revocationId=494176&ein=133746962&exemptTypeCode=al&isDescending=false&totalResults=78&postDateTo=&ein1=&state=CA&dispatchMethod=searchRevocation&postDateFrom=&country=US&city=encino&searchChoice=revoked&indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=ein&resultsPerPage=25&names=national+association+for+the+research+and+therapy+of+homosexuality&zipCode=&deductibility=all . That citation I put in on the main page is probably formatted incorrectly, sad to say. If anyone can clean it up, that would be great.

Sorry...couldn't remember my password to log in! Those changes were mine Codenamemary (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Web Site Down

I could not reach the NARTH website today. Is this due to non-payment, or is it a backlash against NARTH's position that same-sex attraction is a mental disorder? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-branded to Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity?

According to this Mother Jones story, NARTH has now re-named itself the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity. -- The Anome (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we move the article to the new name and leave a redirect.- MrX 16:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I executed the move as MrX suggested. This seems noncontroversial. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't that go against WP:COMMONNAME at this point? --17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think it would serve our readers well, nor would it be factually accurate. Anyone searching for NARTH will land here anyway and learn that the name has changed, which would seem to be a good application of WP:IAR.- MrX 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

NatGertler Hmm... I do not think so... but I see in MOS:Identity that "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used in reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources". This does not sound right to me, because I thought that article titles based on proper names used those proper names. When individuals get name changes, the article name changes then on the presumption that other media sources would use their current name. I think you are right that this goes against COMMONNAME and I see no policy to guide a name change, but my instinct was that the current proper name is the best title. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't automatically follow people's name changes; Cat Stevens is still at that location, for example. And in this case, it's not just a question of whether the new name will supplant the old in usage, but what formulation of the new name. Will sources use the full name, or will they shorten it to just Alliance for Therapeutic Choice, or will some other use become common? In the long run, this new name may be full of important coverage, or it may be just a blip on the radar of an organization that disappears soon after, and we wouldn't want it under that name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and add in the fact that they are still using the NARTH name - if you go to the new webste, you'll see that the "NARTH Institute" is a major part of what this new group is. So there is a real possibility that that is the part that will continue to get attention, that this will end up more like some corporation setting up a holding corporation above them but still doing most of the work or getting most of the attention under that name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving the article to its current name appears to be a mistake, as I've tried to explain below. I would like to ask Bluerasberry to reconsider the move. NARTH has not changed its name to "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity"; the Mother Jones story is simply wrong about that. NARTH still exists, and its website indicates that it is part of the Alliance, not that it has changed its name to "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Our links have undergone their own change efforts and are now all alike

It looks like with the change of websites, NewNARTH has set up that links anywhere to the old NARTH website all serve up the same page. That means we're going to have to spend some time using archive systems to handle all of our references on that were on the NARTH site (or see if the old pages have been transferred to the new website, I suppose.) At the moment, the Wayback Machine isn't responding to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

N.E. Whitehead

I keep seeing his work My Genes Made Me Do It and his web site listed in support of NARTH's goals by people on IMDB and Facebook forums. I also see some of his work on their website (such as "Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems" [8]). I'm surprised it's not part of the sources in this article. If his overview of current research supports flexibility in sexuality so that therapy could switch homosexuals the obverse is also true and heterosexuals can be converted to homosexual. I'm trying to determine if he is a pseudo scientists or real scientist. The only peer reviewed work for a New Zealand PhD named N. E. Whitehead is on radon as part of the Institute of Nuclear Sciences [9]. It wouldn't be the first time a scientist tries publishing work outside their field. I found his article Prenatal hormones are only a minor contributor to male brain structure in humans [10] published in the Journal of Human Sexuality but I now just found that that is a NARTH publication [11]. Has he received one of their awards? 97.85.173.38 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Whitehead has been criticized heavily by Warren Throckmorton for misrepresenting the work of Norman Doidge and geneticist William Rice. Whitehead has no training in a field that would make him a credible source... and he also quotes a lot of biblical passages which he believes refer to people being turned straight. His book is... (lol). There are better claims one could make about the small role environmental factors play, but it looks like he has his mind made up. --Sxologist (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Article name

The name of this article, "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity", appears to be incorrect, as is the statement that, "The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" was known until 2014 as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH is now known as the NARTH institute, but it still exists and has a website at narth.com. It would seem that it is part of the "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" and has not changed its name to "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity." I think the article probably needs to be moved back to the old name, or else to NARTH Institute. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved it back. It was a mistake as you say and by previous discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the article name not be changed to the NARTH Institute, then? I know that page is a redicrect, but NARTH/NARTH Institute's official website seems to imply that their name has been officially changed to "NARTH Institute". (e.g. When NARTH (now the NARTH Institute) was founded twenty years ago...) – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It does not yet appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the group, and as such, we should keep the old name for now (with redirect in place, as you note.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but shouldn't this name change be at least mentioned in the article's lead? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added the name into the lead now. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Aronzak, I don't see any significance in the fact that "same-sex attraction" redirects to Homosexuality. The point of the article's opening sentence ("The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), also known as the NARTH Institute, is an organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of individuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction") is simply to describe what NARTH claims to do. If they claim to try to change "unwanted same-sex attraction", then the article should explain that. The "unwanted" part is again simply part of NARTH's self-description, and it doesn't improve the article to remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be good to have a direct quote, just to make it extra clear that this is in their voice - but yes, if we're reporting what they purport to do, we have to report what they purport to do, not how we think what they do should be viewed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: see the discussions in Conversion therapy § Ethics guidelines - NARTH's view on ethics is the clear outlier. WP:FRINGE states "when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear" - WP:INTEXT states that giving false balance in a single sentence is problematic.

One particular part in Conversion therapy § Ethics guidelines describes why "unwanted" is a contentious loaded term:

An 2014 article in the American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics argues that if a pediatrician learns that parents of a 12 year old patient seek conversion therapy, the pediatrician can advise against "the ineffective and potentially harmful intervention" while being culturally sensitive of their religious objections to homosexuality. The authors argue that the doctor's medical ethics means they should place the interests of the patient above the cultural sensitivities of the parents, and confidentially counsel the patient about resources for LGBT youth facing bullying, and advise the parents about resources for parents of LGBT children.

References

The article in the AMA's paper goes into the case study in depth - a 12 year old who tells their parents they have a "crush" on a boy the same age then the parents force them to go to conversion therapy ("We want to save him from this sinful lifestyle...We are ready to make him work hard at this.") - suggesting that for the 12 year old in the case study, the child's possible same-sex attraction is "unwanted" to the parents, but dubious as to whether the child, in confidential counselling with a psychologist who offers gay celibacy as an option (as American Association of Christian Counselors does), would express that SSA is "unwanted" to them. The term "unwanted" is dubious when applied to people under 18, and NARTH has actively campaigned against bans on providing conversion therapy bans to people under 18 (who can't legally move out from their parents, meaning that compulsion cannot be ruled out for people in that age category claiming SSA is "unwanted") -- Callinus (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And no one has been saying that we shouldn't contrast what they purport with how more mainstream sources describe their actions... but when we're claiming they purport we should be accurate about what they purport, and not present someone else's recasting of it as actually their claims. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Callinus, I am sure you consider this edit well-intentioned, but it does amount to a form of POV-pushing. Article content is meant to be based on reliable sources, not on personal opinion, and the edit summary you gave (""unwanted" is dubious when therapy offered to people under 18 (Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States means that under 18s are under pressure, not personal volition and "unwanted" implies personal volition") is nothing but an expression of personal opinion. Frankly, how do you know that no one under the age of 18 can want not to be gay? If you want to make a case for changing the wording of the lead, you need something better than that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My claim is that fewer than 100% of people under the age of 18 are free of compulsion. The existence of anecdotal reports of people who say they were compelled at an age under 18 proves that fewer than 100% of people under the age of 18 are not compelled. The existence of one person under duress means that fewer than 100% of people accepting the intervention are free of duress and making a free, individual choice.

APA resolution "sexual minority children and youth are especially vulnerable populations with unique developmental tasks (Perrin, 2002; Ryan & Futterman, 1997), who lack adequate legal protection from involuntary or coercive treatment (Arriola, 1998; Burack & Josephson, 2005; Molnar, 1997) and whose parents and guardians need accurate information to make informed decisions regarding their development and well-being"

APSAA "The American Psychoanalytic Association affirms the right of all people to their sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression without interference or coercive interventions attempting to change sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression."

Nicolosi says

Number one, what you do is you let the child know very specifically that effeminate behavior is unacceptable... When parents call me because they are concerned, the first thing I do is an evaluation to determine whether the parents' fears are well-founded. If so, then I basically work with the parents. I really don't work with the child. I coach the parents in doing the right thing. If they're motivated, they can turn this around. If the parents are willing to work together as a team, they can produce very good results. And the younger the child, the faster the change. I once worked with the parents of a 3 1/2 year old boy who wanted to be a girl. We were able to bring about a radical change...

A three and a half year old is not legally capable of giving informed consent, and they have no capacity to resist duress from their parents, or to reject "involuntary or coercive treatment"

The fact that Nicolosi says that interventions should be offered to three and a half year olds means that fewer than 100% of the people receiving his interventions are capable of giving informed consent without duress. It is inappropriate to suggest that the three and a half year old is making an informed choice about "unwanted" behaviour. -- Callinus (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Including "unwanted" in the lead is only explaining what NARTH claims, not presenting their claims as fact. Can't you make that simple distinction? If necessary, the lead can be adjusted to make it clearer that the claims about "unwanted same-sex attraction" are NARTH's, not Wikipedia's, but there's no reason the lead shouldn't explain what NARTH's claims are; obviously it should do that. This has already been discussed on the talk page previously, and it is tiresome to see exactly the same issue being discussed once again. Nat Gertler, do you have any comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"only explaining what NARTH claims" no, it provides a soft endorsement. Wikipedia is for the benefit of readers, not for the progaganda interests of orgs.

The claim that all SSA treated by the org is "unwanted" is a WP:REDFLAG claim.

See MOS:QUOTE - it is always wrong to use phrases like "The site is considered "sacred" by the religion's scriptures" because it interpolates an opinion - also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

"no reason the lead shouldn't explain what NARTH's claims are" - WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG applies - if they are wrong they need analysis in the body, not presentation as soft endorsement in the lead. -- Callinus (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since we're saying here what they purport to be able to do, we should stick with what they purport. Where we can source it well, we can and should also cover where their actions conflict with what they purport (or exemplify actions beyond what they purport), but there's a real difference between saying that you can generally cure the gay away and that you can cure the gay from those what wanna be cured. The example Callinus is citing doesn't even mention curing SSA, it is a case of transgenderism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"it is a case of transgenderism" - Nicholosi's says that his "intervention" for the 3 1/2 year old is for "pre-homosexual condition". The article is called "Homosexuality Avoidable, Doctor Tells Parents" (ldolphin.org) The marketing shows that Nicholosi markets his interventions to parents who don't like possibly gay children, a declining group. To say that NARTH markets exclusively to "individuals" with "unwanted" SSA is a REDFLAG claim.

The phrase "unwanted" is in the second sentence within a quote, that attributes the statement and doesn't interpolate the term "unwanted" in wiki voice. The fact that two psych organizations say that people receiving interventions can be under duress means that the term "unwanted" should not be included in the first sentence.

-- Callinus (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That second sentence is the one that we should be doing away with. A Christian group's view of a supposed therapuetic group should not be seen as a particularly reliable or vital source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Callinus, just to ask the question again, do you have a problem with the lead explaining that NARTH claims to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions change those attractions? I'm afraid that nothing in your rather disjointed comments above really amounts to an answer to that question. There is no point in having an article about NARTH at all if we cannot explain what the organization's claims are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence is an accurate, sourced quote of what a Christian group claims the group does - this is an accurate, sourced, quoted statement that complies with MOS:QUOTE.

WP:FRINGE states "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation"

Nicholosi promotes the following crank theories:

• Homosexuality is a mental disorder
• Interventions in parenting can prevent "pre-homosexual condition" or "sissy-boy syndrome" (Nicholosi says boys become "artistic" and "introverted" due to overbearing mothers and estranged fathers)
• All patients have "unwanted" homosexuality and none are under duress from their parents

A consensus of professional mental health organizations are against every point:

• Homosexuality is not recognised as a mental disorder.
• Changes in parenting practises do not prevent homosexuality in children.
• Sexual minority children are at risk of coercive treatment.

The article Death of Leelah Alcorn documents the death of a person who was forced to undergo conversion therapy under duress. The APA and APSAA statements establish that coercive treatments are used against sexual minority children.

The term "unwanted" implies that all of the people under the age of 18 receiving interventions are doing so in a voluntary capacity, and that none of them are under duress. This is a WP:REDFLAG claim that should be properly attributed to prevent "unintentional endorsement"

Per WP:FRINGE, wikipedia should not uncritically present the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder (the last sentence in the lead section appropriately notes the consensus opinion). For the same reason, Wikipedia should not use the term "unwanted" in a clause in the first sentence, as it may give "unintentional endorsement" to the opinion. The term "unwanted" is appropriate in the sourced and attributed quote in the second sentence. -- Callinus (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also NARTH in legal arguments against bans on SOCE they talk about "parental rights" extensively:

• AlJazeera "Virginia-based American Association of Christian Counselors. They, along with two families who said their children had benefited from the therapy, argued that the constitutional right of free speech as well as "parents' fundamental rights" were violated by the ban."
• 2012 ThinkProgress NARTH quote "We fully anticipate that activist groups like Equality California will be back next year to see what further erosions of parental rights and professional judgment politicians and mental health associations will authorize in California and other states."

NARTH may have changed their messaging from 2012, when they lost the "parental rights" argument. Given their history of advocating a "parental" right to make their child undergo interventions, the term "unwanted" should not be used in the first sentence in a way that whitewashes the history of marketing interventions to parents. -- Callinus (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to explain this, but that very long response isn't actually a response to my question. Is it OK for the lead to state that NARTH sees itself as helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions to change those attractions? Why or why not? Most of your response seems simply beside the point. I'm aware that quoting a group's statement of its goals should not be worded so as to implicitly endorse the group's goals, but as far as I can see, that's never been the case at this article. So I don't understand where you think the problem lies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Calinus, you are mistaken on the policy on this one. WP:REDFLAG would only require that there be impeccable sources that that is what NARTH thinks it does not that it is what actually happens. As a matter of fact, you're not even correct on whether WP:REDFLAG applies at all: the fact that such a group would have such a stated purpose isn't nearly so questionable or controversial as the actual conduct of the group, which is I think what you've actually been getting at above--although, I am not seeing any direct correlation with NARTH here, since this page is only about that one organization, rather than conversion therapy as a whole, where the question of coercion is likely much more germane. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

See also this source on nbcnews.com from 2012:

Most of Nicolosi's clients are men from conservative, religious backgrounds, he said. About 40 percent are teens, and about half of them, sent by their parents, say they don’t want to change or are confused.

“We say, fine, you want to be gay, but are you curious in understanding why you’re gay?” Nicolosi said.

So 40% are teenagers, and NBC estimates that half of those don't willingly want the interventions, and are under duress from their parents. Nicholosi himself admits that some of the people subjected to his interventions "want to be gay" and are under duress.

There's no need to have the word "unwanted" in the first sentence, when Nicholosi has already admitted that some of the people "want to be gay". NARTH asserts that 100% of people receiving interventions have "unwanted" homosexuality - this is contradicted by Nicholosi's statement that a non-zero number of people subjected to interventions "want to be gay" - the term "unwanted" does not merit unquestioned inclusion in the first sentence. It can be included in the quote in the second sentence. -- Callinus (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)