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. 
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. 
4. APA Press Release (August 5, 2009). "INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGE EFFORTS WORK, SAYS APA". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2009-08-006. 
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. 
7. Garcia, Michelle (August 05, 2009). "APA: Stop Ex-Gay Therapy". The Advocate. Retrieved 2009-08-06. 

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)

Everyone please WP:AGF and remember WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Our job is to document culture wars, not wage them. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 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)

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: [4] 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)