Talk:National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

"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'"[1] -- 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." [2]

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)

APA rejects gay to straight therapy

On Wednesday August 5, 2009, The American Psychological Association fired a broadside at NARTH and others that advocate for changing gay to straight through therapy. According to several reliable sources:

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

A NYT article goes on to say (from AP):

In a resolution adopted by the association’s governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.

Further from NYT:

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies

The resolution is entitled: "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts" and is available as a PDF download.

Sources

1. Crar, David (August 5, 2009). "Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. Marquardt, Meg (August 6, 2009). "Psychologists reject gay-to-straight therapy". examiner.com. Retrieved 2009-08-06.
3. Associated Press (August 5, 2009). "Psychologists Reject Gay 'Therapy'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. APA Press Release (August 5, 2009). "INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGE EFFORTS WORK, SAYS APA". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2009-08-006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
5. "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts" - Download as a PDF [here from the APA website.
6. Associated Press (August 5, 2009). "Psychologists Reject Gay 'Therapy'". Herald-Tribune. Retrieved 2009-08-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
7. Garcia, Michelle (August 05, 2009). "APA: Stop Ex-Gay Therapy". The Advocate. Retrieved 2009-08-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

This requires a recasting of the article lede, as this is a major setback to their claims, in addition to the removal of homosexuality from DSM in 1973. Note that the WSJ has a different spin, but that should be no surprise. In any case, they hold a fringe view together with NARTH and others. — Becksguy (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly does this change? The article already states that the APA and NARTH don't see eye-to-eye. I think it's a great opportunity to update some of the refs to the APA's position, but the impact on this article, which is about the organization and only incidentally about its positions, shouldn't be extreme. I anticipate more dialogue in Conversion therapy, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/0806exgay.pdf http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2009/statement.aspx --Destinero (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal ran it with the subtitle: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions [3] Also interesting is an acknowledgement that "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." So even though sexual orientation doesn't change, sexual orientation identity does. It also gives a great review of ex-gay groups: "For instance, participants reported benefits from mutual support groups, both sexual-minority affirming and ex-gay groups." One of the biggest things is that it recognizes the benefits of celibacy: "Some religious individuals may wish to resolve the tension between values and sexual orientation by choosing celibacy (sexual abstinence) ... acting on same-sex sexual attractions may not be fulfilling solutions. Licensed mental health providers may approach such a situation by neither rejecting nor promoting celibacy." According to Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA's task force on the issue, the report "acknowledges that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else." I think this is a great victory for LGBT people with unwanted homosexual attractions. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent), again, this article is not Conversion therapy. There is a separate and specific article dedicated to that topic, to which this article already links. This new set of statements from the APA should only be reflected in this article as needed to clarify and update their positon. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but the summary should not make it sound as if psychotherapy is bad. You need to have the fact that psychotherapy has helped clients change their sexual orientation identity. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to either quote to document your "fact" or stop lying. --Destinero (talk) 20:11, 7 August 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)