Talk:Charles W. Socarides/Archive 1

Needs more work

Too much listing of organizations here. This bio should be abridged to focus on the salient facts, i.e., what Socarides was known for. 71.235.202.144 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

hahahahahaha

"Socarides focused much of his career on the study of homosexuality and whether it can be altered. His son, Richard Socarides (b. 1954) is openly gay."

I'm sorry, but that's just hilarious.

ISBNs

The books need ISBNs. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

huh

This entry is really, really biased.

"As his wife pointed out at his funeral, "Charles believed..."

"As his wife pointed out" seems to endorse the position.

"He reported that "about a third" of his patients had been cured and were able to lead normal heterosexual lives after treatment."

Cured. Normal. Not NPOV.

"Many of his patients, now free from homosexuality, gathered at his funeral on December 29, 2005, and remembered how much love, compassion, understanding, and healing they had received from this courageous doctor, whose only interest was to defend the right of each individual to choose his or her own gender identity and sexual orientation."

I hope I shouldn't even have to explain this.

Not to mention that earlier on in the article it talks about how he "proved" that homosexuality was a mental disorder. He did no such thing. I don't want to rewrite this article, but it's really dumb.

Cool

I don't find this entry biased at all but rather interesting, factual and comprehensive. Check out the link for the differing obituaries for him in the NY Times, that's what I call biased, or should I use the word unbelievable. I recommend checking out his books or papers before jumping to conclusions of what he did or did not prove. Maybe some of us could learn more about certain topics we already think we know all about, and why not from someone who seemed to have spent more than 50 years of clinical research on that topic. Let's be tolerant and open our minds.

Why I have changed the Charles Socarides page

After saying Much of Socarides' career was devoted to studying how homosexuality develops and how it can be "cured", there was a very biased comment (It should be noted that Dr. Socarides has a gay son, Richard, who was an advisor to the Clinton White House on GLBT issues.) This comment is biased because it seems to imply that since Socarides had a gay son, then his theories were wrong and he did not cure anybody. That's not necessarily true. Remember that a psychoanalyst cannot treat his own son. His son's homosexuality could actually have pushed Socarides to study the problem more in depth. We don't know, and we cannot jump to conclusions.

Socarides studied homosexuality for 50 years, published 16 books and over 80 scientific papers. I know we live in the age of "Brokeback Mountain" in which two gay cowboys are celebrated for cheating on their wives and having sex with each other, and it is OK to give people the sexual freedom they want to have, but there are people who are very unhappy being homosexual, and this doctor helped them out and gave them the freedom to be who they wanted to be. Being a scientific encyclopedia, Wikipedia should at least report Socarides' contributions to psychoanalysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Mark242 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2006.

I changed some of the wording around and all that, but I believe that none of the important information you wrote was lost. I believe I am a neutral party in all this; my religion says nothing about homosexuality and I don't really care one way or another. I am doing my best to maintain a NPOV in all this, however. -- 70.36.88.64 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to be neutral too. It is not a religious thing. I know that people with homosexuality have suffered a lot in their life, not only because they have felt rejected, but most of all because they did not want to be homosexual. Socarides was very compassionate and did not reject anybody. He wanted to give people the sexual freedom to be who they really want to be. That includes homosexual people who want to be gay but also people trapped in an unwanted homosexual orientation who want to be heterosexual. However, he was often attacked by the gay community because claiming that homosexuality can be cured implies that homosexuality is not normal, and nobody likes to hear that he is not normal. Socarides understood the dynamics of homosexuality and how it develops, and helped many unhappy people become who they really wanted to be. Thank you for helping me maintain objectiveness in the article. --M.

M- you are right that implying that his son's homosexuality invalidates his research is wrong. I was the one who first put that in there, and I was wrong. However, I do think it's important to note that he had a gay son, as (according to his Obit) he was often quoted as saying his son's homosexuality deepened his desire to research the subject. I also put back in the bit about The APA removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders. Whatever you think of his research, it's definitely relevant to note that he disagreed with the major institutions of his profession. On a side note, whatever his personal views were, Socarides was a co-founder of a movement that is blatantly anti-gay. Five mintue's on NARTH's website will make that obvious. Cabbers 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cabbers, I have studied the theory of Socarides very deeply for my own Ph.D. and just added new elements to his biography. Please let me clarify a few things. (1) I do think that his son's homosexuality should not appear in his Wikipedia page. It is like if we were describing the work of an oncologist who devoted all his life to curing cancer and we added "It should be noted that his son developed brain cancer and died." It would be like implying that the oncologist either was not a good one for not being able to cure his own son (which is unethical anyway) or was a bad person for not having prevented his son from developing brain cancer and dying. Therefore, I think that if we want to stay objective we should remove any statement on Charles Socarides. (2) From what I read on Socarides, I can say that he was not anti-gay or homophobe at all. An anti-gay person would say such things as "Homosexuals are sinners. They will go to hell. Homosexuality is wrong and perverse" and so on. I did not find any such statement in his writings. On the contrary, Socarides was very compassionate with homosexuals and considered them victims of events in their early lives. He understood that a homosexual man is attracted to other men in a desperate attempt to repair his own damaged masculinity through physical incorporation rather than psychological internalization, in a desperate attempt to placate the phallic mother and join the lost father. Socarides helped many troubled people. He founded NARTH in 1992 in an attempt to help homosexual people find theor true identities in a time in which the entire world would declare that homosexuality is fashionable, which prevented them from pursuing the healing they wanted. He wanted also to let other doctors know that change is possible. Homosexuality may be a deeply troubling condition for people who don't want to be homosexual. It is very wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, since they have not chosen their condition, but it is also wrong to tell them that they will never change and rob them of the possibility of a change. Socarides believed that everybody should have a chance. I would like his Wikipedia page to reflect the importance of the findings of this courageous doctor, who dedicated his entire life to understanding the dynamics of homosexuality to help other people. Thank you, M.

The entire world declared it fashionable? I'm sure those living in the 78 countries were homosexuality is criminalized and the eight where it's punishable by death—to say nothing of the countless thousands who are routinely beaten, murdered, and otherwise abused due to their orientation outside the boundaries of the law—would be fascinated to learn of this fact. PenguinJockey (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

M- I disagree with your characterization of the information regarding Socarides' son, and I've put it back in the article. I don't think it's unfair or that it's implies that Socarides is a bad person. It's simply an interesting (to some tragic, to some ironic) sidenote. If I were reading this article without prior knowledge, I would want to know that bit of information. Please just think about it. Maybe there's a different way to phrase it that would make it more palatable to you? On the subject of Socarides' research and treatment of patients, what can I say? To me it's glaringly obvious that he was wrong, to you it's glaringly obvious that he was right. Niether of us is going to convince the other. Cabbers 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cabbers, I appreciate your point of view, but I don't think that Wikipedia, as a scientific encyclopedia, should amuse its readers with "tragic" or "ironic" sidenotes. Again, I really appreciate your point of view, but if you don't mind, I would like to remove that observation for now. I need your help because I would like to give justice to a doctor who spent his whole life to help others and was often misunderstood. I know of many homosexual people who are seeking change and would benefit from knowing the truth. This story of Socarides' son is well known and unfortunately has often been used against him to discredit his work. Maybe we will find another way to phrase it, but for now I think Wikipedia should not report tragic or ironic sidenotes. Please, I am curious to know what makes you believe that it is glaringly obvious that Socarides was wrong. Although I don't want to convince you, I would like to know more about your point of view. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.34.20.19 (talk • contribs) .

Mark, I think we've pretty much hit an impass regarding the information about his son, so I'm putting in a Request for comment. Hopefully some other people will add their views to help us reach consensus! Regarding why I think he's wrong, it doesn't really pertain to this article, so I'm going to leave a comment on your talk page. Thanks for being reasonable and keeping cool about this! Cabbers 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cabbers, thanks for writing to my talk page. How can I reply to you? Should I write to your talk page? (I don't know how to do that). Should I reply in my own talk page? (but then will you be able to read my comment?). Thanks, M.

M- I added your talk page to my watchlist, so if you reply there, I'll see it. Cabbers 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a specifically 'scientific' encyclopedia, and I don't see the sidenote as 'tragic' or 'ironic', just vital to a complete article containing all relevant information, especially since it apparently increased his desire to research the subject. --Fuzzie (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Should paragraph regarding Socarides' son be included?

Should this: Socarides had an openly gay son, Richard Socarides, who served as an advisor to the Clinton White House on GLBT issues. He often declared that his son's homosexuality motivated him to deepen his research on the subject. Be included in the article?

• This information is probably something all knowledgeables of Socarides know about. Yes I think it should be included. Fred-Chess 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. If we accept to talk about Socarides's son's homosexuality, then I agree with M; if an oncologist had a son who died from cancer we should say that, and if a cardiologist had a daughter who died of heart attack we should say that too. I think that this page should talk about Socarides and not become political. The political discussion should be moved to a dedicated section under Homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.78.178 (talk • contribs) . 17:21, 12 March 2006

• Your other examples would be relevant only if, say, the cardiologist were performing advanced research which would have helped the daughter, and they'd often stated that the daughter's death had motivated them to increase their research into the matter. That's generally not the case, but it is in this instance, and so it's clearly relevant to the article, and should be included. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• "The cardiologist were performing advanced research which would have helped the daughter." It is unethical for a doctor to treat his/her own family members. So even if his/her advanced research would have helped the daughter, that doctor could not help her. It is very unfortunate but ethical rules in medicine are very strict. M.

• The information regarding his son is verifiable, notable, and interesting. Because it seems to contradict an agenda being forwarded by the article is no reason to remove it. Ifnord 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE the fact that Socarides' son was gay must be included in the article! I cannot believe the contortions people need to go through to make it appear that this fact is not relevant. All the above talk about "illness", "cures" comparisons to cancer is ridiculous and has been shown to be wrong ever since the early 1970's when the APA declared that being gay is NOT AN ILLNESS. Furthermore, those who claim to have "cured" homosexuality are wrong and have been proven wrong by dispassionate researchers. In any case, it is impossible to cure an illness that doesn't exist. It is likely a waste of bandwidth to try to convince the evangelical religious fringe groups who still tout Socarides as a "scientist", but to real scientists and psychologists this man was a quack and a flat earther. This is not my opinion, it is the consensus of opinion and state-of-the-art teachings of Socarides' own profession, and it has been for nearly 40 years. The amazing degree of professional success enjoyed by Socarides' gay son alone dispels the myth of gay people being mentally ill. If anything, the success of the gay son, Socarides' embarrassment by the son's homosexuality, and the irony of the doctor's dedication of one of his archaic published rants against homosexuals to his own (then 14 y.o.) gay son deserve a MORE prominent place in the good doctor's bio. Any less is a whitewash. -William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL 24.92.217.175 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

External links and links

The method of combining external links with wikilinks within the article text itself is frowned on within Wikipedia. I added a specific cleanup-tag as a reminder. Fred-Chess 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know. I just fixed that and used Wikipedia's standard citation. As a result of the fix, I removed the clean-up tag. I hope it is ok now. M.

There remain a lot of external links imbedded in the text. Ifnord 14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I'm not sure the comparison to an oncologist and a son with cancer is a valid analogy. The medical community agrees that cancer is an illness. Such is not the case with homosexuality. A neutral statement about his son would be appropriate here. Durova 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so suppose Socarides had been a famous dietologist. Would it be OK, in his biography, to say, "It should be noted that his son was overweight." The medical community agrees that being overweight is not necessarily an illness but there are overweight people who are unhappy and want to be thin. Similarly, the medical community may agree that homosexuality is not an illness but there are homosexual people who are unhappy and want to be heterosexual. There is nothing wrong if a person wants to change his/her sexual orientation. The fact that a famous dietologist has an overweight son may give the false impression that the dietologist failed in addressing his/her own son's issues, but the truth is that it is unethical for any medical practitioner to cure his/her son. M.

If the argument was that the dietologist had repeatedly said that their son's overweightness had encouraged their research into the matter, then yes, I believe it would be appropriate and relevant to place that information on their biography page. You are apparently ignoring that portion of the RfC statement, and basing your arguments around a different matter, one of a simple statement about the son, which is not what we're discussing. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excess weight is generally agreed to be a health problem, which isn't true of homosexuality. The only fair analogy I can think of is rather trivial, but suppose a medical doctor devoted a substantial part of his career to converting left-handed people to right-handedness... Durova 02:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• When did Socarides "repeatedly" say that his son's homosexuality encouraged his research into the matter? I think it would be important to find the source of such a statement before reporting it in the encyclopedia.

An excellent question. I can't find it on Google. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

An additional reason the above analogies concerning doctor's children is not relevant: The analogy would need to include the fact that the doctor in question believed that his input as a parent had CAUSED the (so-called) illness. So please give us an analogy where a doctor insists that his son is ill, the illness is OVERWHELMINGLLY considered to be NON-EXISTENT by said doctor's colleagues, and the doctor believed that he and his wife were the primary causes of the (imaginary) illness due to factors in the son's early childhood! If any one can truly come up with an analogy to this bizarre, ridiculous, and ironic situation, and can show that such a situation was NOT extraordinary, then we can all agree that it does not belong in the bio. The fact that people are trying so hard to keep this situation out of Socarides' bio by using tortured analogies that don't come close to the Socarides gay son situation make it difficult for me to believe these people are acting in good faith and do not have an agenda of protecting Socarides' reputation from the contempt with which he's viewed by so many of his colleagues. 24.92.217.175 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Family Life?

Honestly, can sombeody explain what is the meaning of a section called Family Life in the scientific biography of a doctor? I was just reading the biography of a mathematician and there they did not say a word about his family. It appears that this obsessive attention to his "family life" (whatever that means) is only a way to diminish the importance of the scientific findings of this man.

Abraham Lincoln, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud . . . each of these articles discusses the marriages, children, family and private lives of these people. I could go on and on in this list. Personal life is a legitimate encyclopedic interest. Cabbers 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Cabbers, no biographical account is complete without details on their family life. I understand that some wish to promote his anti-gay therapies only, but one could do that on their own webpage not an encyclopedia. Ifnord 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what criteria is used to enter such information, but shouldn't BOTH Charles Socarides and his son Richard Socarides be listed as Greek Americans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.74.221 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

About Reparative Therapy

Cabbers et al, I like the new structure that you are giving to Socarides page, but I removed the line that said that Socarides practiced reparative therapy because he did not. He founded NARTH but later disagreed with the reparative therapy approach promoted by NARTH. In his opinion, reparative therapy does not work. In none of his books, publications, or speeches can we read that he promoted reparative therapy. He actually did not even like the term "reparative therapy" because in his opinion it created confusion. He was convinced that homosexuality itself is a "reparative process" (the homosexual man or woman inconsciously uses homosexuality to repair a deep wound from childhood). Therefore, calling the healing process itself "reparative" was confusing, in his opinion. Socarides only believed in psychoanalysis. Thanks, M.

The concept of reparative therapy was extraneous to Socarides. He did not believe in the concept of reparative therapy. He believed that only psychoanalysis could bring true and deep healing of the profound traumas that are behind homosexuality. Please let's not put back Reparative Therapy on Charles Socarides' page unless you can prove that he actually supported it.

But why remove the entire section on his family life? Every book he has written is listed but no personal details? That would be an advertisement, not an encyclopedic entry. Ifnord 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

He did not believe in Reparative therapy? From the article, "Reparative therapy (also known as "conversion", "reorientation" or "differentiation" therapy), refers to any of several techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or ex-gay).(also known as "conversion", "reorientation" or "differentiation" therapy), refers to any of several techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or ex-gay)." Ifnord 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer

I think this article should mention what Socarides wrote about gay serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer in his book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. That would be a fascinating addition. Skoojal (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is his opinion on Dahmer notable? Have other people referenced Socarides opinions? Is his writing on Dahmer something that when someone mentions Socarides people who are familiar with Socarides would say, "Oh yes, he is the person that wrote X about Dahmer"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, notability does not directly limit the content of articles. And the answer to whether anyone refers to Socarides's views on Dahmer is yes. Andrew Sullivan does so in his book Love Undetectable. Skoojal (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Other people writing about it provides the third party sources that are recommended - rather than WP editors using primary sources (writing from primary sources encourages original research). -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. Skoojal (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that OTHER people have found his views of this topic interesting enough to write about would 1) show that the views are notable and would 2) also provide the secondary sources that help keep Wikipedia editors' from conducting original research - which is a tendancy when writing articles and sections of articles based solely on primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline says, 'These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.' I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be a brief mention of Socarides's theory about Dahmer here. Skoojal (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not absolutely opposed, but I think that in general if other people have not considered an idea worthy of writing about/commenting on/or quoting it in their work, that idea is probably not 'encyclopedic' and not worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Why don't you draft what you would propose to include and post it here (or in a sandbox) and editors can then comment on actual text rather than theoreticals.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Socarides's views about Dahmer are interesting, at the very least, because of what they show about Socarides, who tries to use them to prove a point about homosexuality generally. Whether Socarides's views have any inherent merit or not, readers can judge for themselves.

The relevant material that I think the article should quote from is on pages 109 and 110 of Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Socarides writes, in a mock interview with himself, 'Remember the case of Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee? Doctors can learn a great deal from extreme examples of pathology like Dahmer's. He was a psychotic who also happened to be a homosexual. In his compulsion to incorporate the bodies of other men after same-sex sex, he ended up eating the body parts of his murder victims.' The interviewer (Socarides himself), then asks, 'This made him feel more male?', and Socarides answers 'In his case, it kept him tied to a piece of reality, at least; he preserved his relationship to an object - part object, part person, so that he would not be completely lost in his psychosis. The payoff was illusory, a kind of pseudo-strengthening.' The next question is, 'And this was a consequence of his homosexuality?', to which Socarides answers, 'Every homosexual who wants to incorporate the body of his male lover is utilizing the same mental mechanism: incorportion. Most homosexuals are content to do this symbolically. Dahmer was psychotic; he took his homosexual disorder beyond the limits.' The article should be able to quote at least some of this, noting how Socarides saw Dahmer's cannibalism as an extreme example of the same kind of desire or motive that in his view is shared by average homosexuals. Skoojal (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you might have trouble finding people who would reference that view. Are you suggesting adding something like

Socarides saw Dahmer's cannibalism as an extreme example of the same kind of desire or motive that in his view is shared by average homosexuals. <citation>

Considering the amount that he published, if the only Dahmer remarks he made (or the only comments he made about homosexuality and cannibalism) putting much more detail in an article this size would seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to this facet of his work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider it undue to include at least a brief mention of this, because it is obviously helpful to understanding Socarides's theories about homosexuality. I think that there has to be a direct quote from Socarides, so that readers can catch what seems to be his fascination with the goriness of Dahmer's behavior. The tone as well as the content of what he wrote is important. Skoojal (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He published at least 16 books according to the bibliography, and since the article does not discuss his writings in detail, for us to select one item from one chapter of one book to highlight, is giving it undue weight - unless the particular quote is widely noted, which it aparently his Dahmer view is not. If the article discussed his writing in a more thorough fashion (which would require multiple outside sources) we could include this as part of S's body of work but highlighting it out of context of his other work is not appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your objections valid. Obviously an an article that discussed Socarides's theories in more detail is what is wanted. To do this, one needs mainly Socarides's own works. Briefly mentioning Socarides on Dahmer would be a step in the right direction. It seems silly to say that it can't go into the article because numerous other things would have to be there as well - one can't add all this information simultaneously. The article does already say a little about what Socarides wrote in Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, so there's no reason why this additional detail shouldn't be added. Skoojal (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And again, Socarides's views have been mentioned and discussed by other writers - Andrew Sullivan, himself a widely noted writer, does so in his book Love Undetectable. I will find the exact reference if needed. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We want to give an overview of the body of the person's work, not highlight their most outrageous wingnut views - especially when those views are sooooo out there that no one even bothers to comment on how wacky they are. We are writing an encyclopedia, not Ripley's Believe It or Not!. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That Socarides's view of Jeffrey Dahmer was an 'outrageous wingunt' view is your opinion. I think that it is very insightful and very interesting. But more importantly, it does help readers understand Socarides's view of homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment was about all articles - we want to have the article reflect the person's body of work - not pulling out one part of one chapter of 18+ books and placing it out as representative.

And yes I will stand by my identification of wingnut view on this piece of information - if there were any substance to his Dahmer view, SOMEONE would have written about it. The fact that there isn't (Andrew Sullivan - a non-scientist - making a comment in passing doesn't count) is telling about the theory's non-notability. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't think that there is a problem here. There is no indication that Socarides's view of Dahmer contradicts anything else he wrote about homosexuality, so its being representative or not is not an issue. The mention of his view of Dahmer is brief and does not over-emphasise it. As for notability, this does not directly limit the content of articles. Skoojal (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wanna keep his Dahmer theory "homos are cannibals" as a highly representative piece of information about Socarides, I am not going to argue anymore. But I sill dont think it should be included until it comprises a proportionate amount of the discussion about his work and is suppported by secondary sources.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That "homos are cannibals" is not what Socarides wrote. That's a very distorted and simplistic way of describing his view. I repeat that the mention is not disproportionate - if I'd quoted the entire section where Socarides describes his view of Dahmer, it would have been, but I didn't do that. Skoojal (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Style

It's bad style for the article to say, 'Socarides focused much of his career on the study of homosexuality and whether it can be altered.' That's a mouthful of a sentence that should be broken up into two shorter sentences, which is what I've done. Skoojal (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding a couple of items in the bibliography

I have a question about two items in the bibliography. The first is 'Sexual politics and scientific logic: The Issue of Homosexuality.' I'm aware that Socarides did publish an article with this title, but what is the evidence that it was published as a book? Also, I'm unsure about 'A Day at a Time: Daily Reflections for Recovering People.' Was this a book by Socarides? I have searched for this book on the Advanced Book Exchange, but the copies there give James Jennings as the author and don't mention Socarides. Skoojal (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 'Sexual politics and scientific logic', this seems to be an essay, not a book. It is available here, for instance [1]. I'm not sure why this is in the bibliography if there is no evidence it is a book. Skoojal (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have recently deleted the criticism section of this article. The reason is that this is an article about Charles Socarides and little of the criticism linked to was about Socarides specifically (Youth in the Crosshairs has a few mentions of Socarides, but that was about it). Before someone accuses me of having some horrible anti-gay motivation for doing this, I'll point out that this article links to the article on conversion therapy, which is overwhelmingly criticial of attempts at changing sexual orientation. My opinion (which I don't expect that everyone will share) is that there was an unnecessary overlap of material between this article and the conversion therapy article. There's quite enough criticism of attempts at changing sexual orientation there; it doesn't have to be in this biography as well. I'm currently on a drive to get rid of criticism sections, so this has nothing to do with wanting to protect Socarides. Skoojal (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientists rarely criticise other scientists directly - they cricicise the theories and analysis presesented by other scientists. Because Socarides promoted the 'conversion therapy' concept, criticism of that concept is appropriate in this artictle. The criticism should be a summary with a link leading to the main articles, but it needs to be here too. (WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, limiting the amount of overlap information we provide). -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'Scientists rarely criticize other scientists directly.' How do you know this? I suspect it's the sort of thing scientists do all the time. I don't think a separate criticism section is needed here, but I also don't want to edit war over this, so I'll content myself with making some minor changes. Skoojal (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't remove the criticism section again, but I note that the articles on Irving Bieber, Elizbeth Moberly and Jeffrey Satinover do not have such sections, so there is no logical reason why this one should. It may be arguable that the criticism section belongs here because Socarides was such a well known figure, but that's a slender justification. Skoojal (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an expanded criticism section that specifically tackles Socrides assertions made in his book about the removal homosexuality from the DSM.Jemiljan (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again people: When a scientist, intellectual or other professional comes up with theories that are completely at odds with the collective beliefs of his professional colleagues, of course it is relevant to include their criticisms in the bio. I cannot even believe that the defenders of Socarides are trying to assert that his bio needs to be scrubbed of legitimate professional criticism when his 'theories' are considered quackery by his fellow professionals! Have you people no shame?! Here you have a psychological flat-earther, claiming that the earth is flat, his colleagues insist that 'no it isn't', and you believe we should just mention in the bio that Socarides came up with the brilliant theory that the earth is flat, but not mention the embarrassing little detail that PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AGREE THAT HE IS WRONG. This article will never be taken seriously until it reports what is happening in the real world rather than how a small group of Socarides admirers would like the world to remember their hero. -William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.217.175 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Redundant item in the bibliography

The bibliography contains this: 'Socarides, Charles W. (1989). Homosexuality: Psychoanalytic Therapy. Jason Aronson, Inc. ISBN 0-87668-814-8.' This book is just a different edition of Homosexuality, first published in 1978. Bibliographies usually do not need to include different editions of the same book, so I wonder whether this should be removed. Skoojal (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that rather than actually removing it, that it is noted under the original title (Republished in X year under the title _____" ) or vice versa - keep the most recent publication info and note that it was originalluy published on X date under the title ____. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably what should be done. Skoojal (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dance-Movement Therapy: another misleading item in the bibliography

The bibliography refers to a book called Dance-Movement Therapy: Mirror of Our Selves, and suggests that it was cowritten by Elaine V. Siegel and Charles Socarides. In fact the author of this book was Elaine V. Siegel. It is only her name that appears on the cover and title page. Dance-Movement Therapy does contain a foreword by Charles Socarides, but he does not appear to have been a co-author of this book, in the same way that he was a co-author of several other books in the bibliography. I suggest that it be removed from the bibliography. Skoojal (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since no one replied to the above message or made an objection, I have removed that item from the bibliography. If it is considered necessary, a brief mention that Socarides wrote a foreword for Siegel's book could be added to the article. Skoojal (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Biographic Details

This article contains a lot of information about Socarides's career, but lacks several important biographic details. I'll mention two things that I think should definitely be added. One was Socarides's encounter with Simon LeVay, which is described in LeVay's book Queer Science. The other was tbe controversy over Socarides being honoured by the Association for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists, an organization within the British National Health Service, which is described in Joanna Ryan's article Homophobia and Hegemony in Ann Oakley and Juliet Mitchell's book Who's Afraid of Feminism? Two other things that might possibly be mentioned are Socarides critical exchanges with gay writers Chandler Burr and Andrew Sullivan; sources for this are also available. Skoojal (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry on "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far"

Someone entered a section called "Books" and under that section that person listed ONLY "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far". Socarides wrote 18 books and it does not make any sense to discuss only one. We should have a complete coverage of this research scientist's books, not just discuss one. Not to mention that the discussion on that particular book was ridiculously biased, with sentences extrapolated from the book and reported here completely out of context. I have personally met some of Socarides' patients who have left homosexuality completely behind and have become completely heterosexual. Socarides never criticized homosexuals who want to continue to live a homosexual life. He only wanted to help those who want to become heterosexual. If a straight man wants to become gay and experiment with homosexuality, nobody argues with that decision. Why should we argue with gay men who want to become straight? Freedom of sexual orientation should be granted to anyone.

You're quite right that it doesn't make sense to discuss only that one book. Obviously the article should discuss all of Socarides's books. It happens that I have copies of all of them (with the exception of A Day at a Time, which may not count as a book by Socarides). I will add discussions of Socarides's other books to this article at such time as I can be bothered reading them. The reason why Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far is the only book mentioned in the article at the moment is that previous editors (not me) added this information. In regards to your accusation of bias: I've already stated here that I find some of Socarides's views interesting and even convincing (see the section on Jeffrey Dahmer). That doesn't alter the fact that Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far is in most ways a dreadfully bad book. I'm not interested in arguing with or discussing your other comments. Skoojal (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I have shifted your comments, and my reply to them. It's customary to place new comments at the bottom of a talk page, not the top, and I'm strongly in favour of preserving this arrangement. Skoojal (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You will also note that I've restored comments to the talk page that you blanked out. Please don't delete comments from talk pages unless there is a really good reason to do so. Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

---

apologies, I'm not familiar with wiki-etiquette but wanted to bring to the attention of the authors on this article that in the opening of the propaganda piece "The Pink Swastika", a revisionist history of the apperently flamboyantly gay nazi party, Charles Socarides is the first person thanked by the authors, "for his encouragement and support." I googled the man to make sure he wasn't actually still teaching psychiatry anywhere, and the first thing I found was a wiki article claiming he didn't think homosexuality was immoral. having just seen him cited as a primary contributor to one of the most hateful anti-gay texts ever published, (claiming we perpetrated the holocaust rather than being an internationally acknowledged group of its victims), I'm a bit alarmed to find wikipedia claiming this man was anything but a bigot.

http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.11.93 (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Affiliations with Associations

It seems to me that because the listing of professional associations Socarides was affiliated with may give the impression that these organizations still endorse his conclusions about the nature of homosexuality. It would be prudent to list when these organizations stopped considering homosexuality a disease to avoid an appearance of bias toward Dr. Socarides' position. For example, the APA removed homosexuality from it's list of diseases in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.249.82 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Son's sexuality

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert the claim that Richard Socarides only "became homosexual" after his parents divorce, claiming that is what the source says. The source actually say " he became aware of the contradiction between his sexual orientation and his father's professional life" at that time, which is a very different statement. As this is a BLP matter, the other claim cannot be allowed in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles W. Socarides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811131953/http://narth.com/docs/soctribute.html to http://www.narth.com/docs/soctribute.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118045200/http://www.narth.com:80/docs/socobits.html to http://www.narth.com/docs/socobits.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325081625/http://www.narth.com/docs/soctribute2.html to http://www.narth.com/docs/soctribute2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Socarides's view of homosexualtiy

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: removed a long-standing section of the lede (not added by me); I noticed it was gone, re-added it, and was quickly reverted because "That violates WP:NPOV. It present's Socarides's claim to be able to "cure" gays as if it were fact. That is 100% unacceptable." [2]

Are we reading different sentences? That isn't what that sentence says at all. It says the prospect of a cure. Nowhere does that line imply anything about the efficacy of Socarides's theories or treatments. It is entirely about how society viewed gays: that gays were seen as criminals who liked doing immorality for fun before, and Socarides saw them as just mentally ill in a harmless fashion, and that this was considered a step forward by some gays of the era. Even if you still don't like that line, it's sourced to the NYT, one of the best sources out there. Such a stance would obviously be seen as reactionary today, but the point of the line is that according to the NYT it was a step forward at the time. You are entirely free to disagree, but not to deny that the NYT's profile *said* this. Would you mind if I put it back? (I can see arguing over placement, though, sure, if you think the lede isn't the best spot for it...) SnowFire (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The material reads,

"As a 1995 New York Times profile put it, "Socarides offered the closest thing to hope that many gay people had in the 1960s: the prospect of a cure. Rather than brand them as immoral or regard them as criminal, Socarides told gay people that they suffered from an illness whose effects could be reversed."

That is low-grade propaganda. It is not the kind of thing that would ever see the light of day in a respectable encyclopedia. It takes an opinion favorable to Socarides expressed in the New York Times and presents it as though it were actual fact (which is the effect of the "As a 1995 New York Times profile put it" language). I assure you that it isn't uncontroversial fact that "Socarides offered the closest thing to hope that many gay people had in the 1960s". Dumping that crap in the lead of this article is like filling the lead of the Hillary Clinton article full of favorable things that her supporters have said about her and presenting them as though they were all uncontroversial fact and absolute truth. Or like putting the words, "Donald Trump is the greatest US President ever" in the lead of his article simply because some newspaper, somewhere, expressed that opinion. That kind of shit would not be acceptable at those articles and it is not acceptable here either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: And yet it saw the light of day in a respectable newspaper...? You disagreeing with the tone of the NYT piece isn't necessarily cause to remove it. Looking more closely, sure, "put it" is perhaps a nudge-y phrasing, but if it was changed to "NYT profile read" and the words "1995 profile" are added (to make clear that the NYT is unlikely to have used the same wording today), it seems fine. If you have a source that's more hostile to Socarides, you're free to cite it as well, and we can have both in the article... we can also make clear that only "conservative" sources really stand-up for Socarides today, and that this would be their preferred slant on his work. SnowFire (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no "perhaps" about it. The wording endorses an opinion favorable to Socarides that someone expressed in a newspaper, presenting that opinion as though it were fact. There is nothing close to acceptable about that. Despite what you seem to believe, claiming that Socarides offered gay people "the prospect of a cure" does imply that his attempts to quote-unquote "cure" gay people of homosexuality stood some realistic chance of success, and that is not a mainstream opinion. There is no reason that such material should be added to the article. Even if it were worded differently, it would still not serve any legitimate encyclopedic purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a failure to agree on reality here. The wording explicitly sourced the quote to "a New York Times profile". And said profile thought it was prominent enough to stick right at the top. So... no, it's not presenting it as fact, it's presenting it as a comment from a reliable source. It could just as easily have said "According to the New York Times, Socarides is actually a robot from Mars." Wikipedia is not claiming either fact, it is merely restating the source's fact, as should be true about basically everything in Wikipedia. Everything is acceptable about that. And if it's not obvious, this has nothing to do with the efficacy of gay "cures". That sentence is not about whether they're effective or not. It is about societal views about homosexuality, that Socarides saw them as mentally ill, and that in its own way, this was a step forward in the 1960s. Knowledge in 2017 that gay cures are bunk has absolutely nothing to do with that. And again, you don't have to agree with the NYT that it was a step forward, you just have to accept that they wrote that. SnowFire (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. Yes, the wording ("As a 1995 New York Times profile put it") explicitly sources the quote to a New York Times profile, and yes, it also presents the opinion expressed in that profile as fact. Dancing around the point doesn't refute it. The wording used does indeed imply that there was some realistic chance that Socarides's conversion therapy would be effective, and that is not acceptable. Perhaps you should find some better use for your time on Wikipedia than making attempts to promote fringe views, attempts that are never going to be successful? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Put bluntly, you'll note that I'm here on the talk page, not in an edit war? You are making an interpretation that is, put bluntly, wrong. There is no endorsement of conversion therapy. There is no "opinion" being presented, but rather a factual statement about societal attitudes of the 1960s, which are not the same as 2017, and the linked article does not have any qualifications about it being a personal opinion, but rather the NYT's attempt at factual reporting. And I agree with you that conversion therapy is bunk. So... telling me it's not effective has utterly zero relevance to the article.

Moving forward, what would make you happy about including this source? How explicit do we need to be to not be an endorsement of conversion therapy in your opinion? Because, like I said, I personally have no interest in doing this. I just don't think the original passage remotely comes off as said endorsement, but maybe there's a phrasing we can both be happy with. How about this, in the Biography section: "While others saw homosexuals as immoral or criminals in the 1960s, Socarides saw them as "merely" mentally ill, and curable. This hope of a cure was later endorsed only by conservative allies such as the Traditional Values Coalition." And add in whatever "by the way gay cures don't work" after that. Would that be fair? SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you do not understand that the effect of the wording you restored to this article here is to endorse conversion therapy, then frankly you would do well to avoid editing not only this article but articles about controversial topics in general. If you do not propose to restore that content, which would be inadvisable, then continued discussion of it serves no purpose. I do not support your other proposed addition, which does not seem suitable for an encyclopedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Took some time off so as not to violate WP:NPA. All I'll say in response is that I could just as easily accuse you that you shouldn't work on "controversial" topics, and that wouldn't carry much weight, now would it?

To back up to the politics of this some. Let me stress this is a wholly irrelevant side conversation but one that you seem to insist on having. In the 1500s, there were genuine arguments over whether the Spanish could/should just kill any Indian that got in their way. And others who said "hey, let's not kill them, we can enslave them." And others who said "Well, they might be like children, but if we Christianize them, they still have souls, and can be sorta half-citizens at least." The third group would seem positively monstrous to modern morals - what, only Christian Native Americans matter - but they were actually the "liberals" for the day. We happen to have a source that indicates that Socarides was in such a position - his ideas are monstrous to modern knowledge, yes, but were a step forward for the time. That's it. There is zero endorsement of conversion therapy. And if you think there is, then we can word it to be extra-obvious-clear. (Which shouldn't really have been a concern, there's all sorts of feel-good stuff that is totally wrong.) And hell, maybe there are other sources that say Socarides is a scumbag. You can throw those in too! Sheesh. We should not censor something positive about him just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I'm not sure there's any fruitful collaboration to be had here, so would you object if I ask for a WP:3O, or a neutral talk page elsewhere? (Happy to take suggestions.) There's clearly a failure to agree on reality here. Like I said, I am happy to work on a wording that incorporates the material (which was, let me stress again, not originally added by me) without being an "endorsement" of conversion therapy. SnowFire (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove the material because I did not like it. I removed it because it is an opinion-piece, expressing a personal value judgment by the person who wrote it, and including it has nothing to do with the proper purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to convey actual information. There is naturally nothing stopping you from asking for a third opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Awards

There is no policy or guideline stipulating that articles must not mention awards someone received. The article Sigmund Freud mentions that Freud received the Goethe Prize, and that's perfectly appropriate. I think the information that was removed here should be restored, if need be without the redlinks. As to the charge that the information is of "no proven significance", I believe that to be mistaken, for the following reason. The book Who's Afraid of Feminism? Seeing through the Backlash, edited by Ann Oakley and Juliet Mitchell, contains the following, in an article by Joanna Ryan: "I had been trying to explain .... why it was so important to mount some kind of professional protest at the honouring of Professor Charles Socarides by an important psychoanalytic organization within the NHS, the Association of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists (the APP). This protest and the reaction to it within the profession produced many wider discussions about psychoanalysis and homosexuality and the nature and extent of homophobia in some aspects of the theories and practices of psychoanalysis." See page 129. It seems clear that this award is a relevant part of Socarides's biography, given its discussion in a published academic source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also no policy or guideline stating that non-notable awards should be included. Oh, actually there is, for areas where award padding is rampant, such as films. We should not include non-notable awards, especially on divisive figures. And it's not an "important psychoanalytic organisation". Psychoanalysis is pretty fringe these days. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)