Talk:Warren Throckmorton
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Conversion therapy versus reparative therapy edit
An editor recently changed this sentence, 'Throckmorton believes that sexual orientation is a murky concept and sometimes fluid, and often states that he is not a reparative therapist', replacing 'reparative' with 'conversion.' This change did not make the assertion false, strictly speaking, but as I understand it is reparative therapy specifically that Throckmorton has distanced himself from, rather than simply conversion therapy in general. Skoojal (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the quote from Throckmorton, linked to in the article and also available here [1], 'For instance, I believe that sexual orientation is a murky concept and fluid but I am not a reparative therapist.' This is enough to show that altering "reparative" to "conversion" was a mistake that misrepresents what Throckmorton said. Skoojal (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: Get rid of the "controversies" section edit
I'm making this proposal because probably everything Throckmorton has said is controversial to some extent - which makes a separate section about 'controversies' hardly necessary. Most of this section is an unreadable mess anyway.Skoojal (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have divided the controversies section into two different sections, and shifted some other material in it to different parts of the article. Skoojal (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Christian Post edit
An editor has repeatedly inserted content of WP:BLP concern, sourcing it to a blog page that says that it is representing an article that was briefly on The Christian Post, but was taken down within hours. In an edit summary, he reckoned that the Christian Post was a reliable source, so it should be okay. The problems with this are:
- If we are referencing the blog in citing the Christian Post, then the problem is that we cannot rely on the blog to be accurate about the Christian Post, because the blog is not a reliable source.
- If we can rely on the blog to be accurate, then we must accept that the Christian Post took down the article within hours, which suggests that it is not a story that they stand behind.
- The only time that The Christian Post's reliability was raised on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, consensus was that it was not a reliable source.
As such, as negative BLP material without a reliable source, it cannot be allowed to stand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Heavy tagging edit
An editor recently added a full dozen tags to this article without leaving comment. Some of the tags seem difficult to justify, or at least identify what they are intended to address. The article's factual accuracy is disputed - by whom? Where? "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" - which contributor? "Needs additional citations for verification" - there's about one citation for each sentence here, this is not an article with an apparent lack of citation. I am asking that @Coffeecup89: review their tags, remove any that may not seem needed on reconsideration, and provide a better explanation of those that remain that are not immediately apparent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the wrong tags. Sorry about that, NatGertler. Still learning. coffeecup89 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking care of that! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Spitzer's endorsements edit
(New to this; hopefully I'm doing this right). I just removed the statement "Spitzer later tried to retract his research that endorsed Throckmorton's work by saying 'The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more,'" which linked to a source that is completely unrelated to Throckmorton's work. Spitzer did retract the conclusions of his study that endorsed the efficacy of reparative therapy, but he did not retract his statements endorsing Throckmorton's sexual identity therapy, which is an entirely different framework with entirely different goals.[1] Throckmorton and Spitzer were both staunch critics of the effectiveness of reparative therapy at the time of Spitzer's death.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturatedanalog (talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)