Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Joseph Nicolosi on 01:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC). The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was merge. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Markworthen ( talk · contribs) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing this article.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is definitely better than most articles, but needs some work to reach Good Article status. Here are some examples from the Introduction (lead; lede). I have copied-and-pasted only the plain text, i.e., no italics or bold, no hyperlinks, etc. A word or words in [square brackets] should be added to make the sentence grammatically correct, more comprehensible, etc. {My comments are italicized and contained within single curly brackets}.
Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about conversion therapy by | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Neither I nor Earwig's Copyvio Detector identified any copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Thank you for reviewing the article. I note with regret that you have made changes to do it that do not appear to be supported by reliable sources. For example, you added the following to the lead: "The book remained available on the Amazon platform, but only from other booksellers." No reliable source was provided for the claim that "The book remained available on the Amazon platform, but only from other booksellers", so that statement must be removed, as an unacceptable form of original research, per WP:NOR. If my disagreement with you about this or other issues means that you fail the article, so be it. I am not concerned with getting the article passed above all else: my main concern is with keeping the article accurate. Doing all concerned a favor by stating this directly and at the beginning of this process. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 01:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I flatly disagree with you that the definite article should not be added before "psychologist". It lowers the quality of the article to remove it. I say this based on my experience with previous discussions of the issue. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I flatly disagree with you that "who draws on work by previous authors" is unclear in importance, or vague, or that it is "best to leave out of lead". Its importance should be perfectly obvious. It makes a fundamental difference to how a reader views a work like Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. It makes all the difference in the world whether an author like Nicolosi is putting forward basically original or novel ideas, or whether his ideas are basically derivative of other authors. Nicolosi's ideas about homosexuality and its causes are anything but novel. He is essentially just restating other people's ideas, in slightly different form - the "who draws on work by previous authors" part makes that apparent. As for "vague", vagueness refers to lack of clarity. It is perfectly clear what the statement means and as such it is not vague. You should not have removed it. Doing so lowers the quality of the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You state that "departs from traditional psychoanalytic technique" is ungrammatical. If you believe it is ungrammatical it is up to you to explain why. I am open to suggestions about that sentence should be written instead. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You state that "prepare for heterosexual marriage" is vague. No, it is not. Vagueness means lack of clarity about meaning. It is clear what "prepare for heterosexual marriage" means. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The suggestion that the lead should not include the publication date sentence seems to fly in the face of the manual of style's lead section standards, one of the GA criteria that this review needs to adhere to, and infoboxes should not be used as a reason to limit prose material in the lead. The information should remain (though the word "first" is unnecessary as noted). BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tbhotch ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of the previous reviewer withdrawn. Due to the nominator requested, and I cite, "If you believe it is ungrammatical it is up to you to explain why" I will request at the end a second opinion on prose. I have already read the article once, and while prose is not bad, the inquiries made by Mark and Bluemoon are indeed valid. Right now, the only comment I will say is that
depart something does not mean the same
depart from something means. 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Article on hold/wait for a second opinion. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
My main concern would be 1(a). For example, there are 65 "that"s in the article, and as far as I know English language does not use 'that' that much (no pun intended). © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Second opinion:
I do not see a major 1(a) concern. I'm not clear on where the article is overusing "that", a very common word, or why 65 uses of the term amongst a 1800 word article is an issue. I do, however, note a lack of absence of evaluating the article under criteria #2(a)–(c), #3 and #4. In particular, as a highly contentious article on a
fringe issue, the article needs thorough checking to ensure that it presents the medical consensus correctly and always provides mainstream medical information alongside any claims which are not mainstream. Such checks have not been justified by comments at this GA review or the previous partially-completed one. The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge. One has to read to the second paragraph to see any mention that conversion therapy, including reparative therapy, is a pseudoscience. Even then, such claims are attributed vaguely to "some" or to "critics". It needs to be clear that these "some"/"critics" include mainstream professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association, and the APA's specific criticisms of reparative therapy and specifically of Nicolosi need be mentioned in the lead.
The body of the article goes a lot of the way to making sure it presents fringe viewpoints appropriately, but this needs thorough evaluation as well, as there may be areas which need improvement. For instance, spotchecks of references should be done to check that due weight is given to them depending on the depth and relevance of their comments.
Though unfortunate to drag out this process further given that the article was in the GAN queue for several months, and has now had two reviewers, I am afraid a full review is yet to be done. It would not be appropriate to the standards of GA quality to pass this article without a full review being done; but the article should not be failed without giving the primary contributor a fair chance at addressing concerns in a full review. I recommend that Tbhotch should reply saying whether they are willing to evaluate the article with detailed explanations under criteria #2(a)–(c), #3 and #4, and if not that another reviewer should do a full review of these criteria.
I separately note some civility issues that contributed to the abandoning of the first review and may be relevant to this review, and encourage the nominator to be patient, polite and willing to accept feedback. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
notin your MOS:LEAD quote
not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows, giving the opposite meaning. While the article is not about reparative therapy, it presents information related to reparative therapy, including a detailed account of an individual's view on conversion therapy, so WP:FRINGE applies. This is uncontroversial. MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH reads that the first paragraph should
define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view [...] It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.Of course, listing Nicolosi's views only is not a neutral point of view—we all agree on this because we are agreed that there should be some description of criticism of the book in this article. Hence, the summary of the book must not be the only view provided in the lead paragraph, so that the surrounding context can be established. The reason this guideline is present is because many readers only read the first paragraph. It may be that none of us ever do this, or that we wish readers would read further, or that we eyeroll at people who do not bother to read a measly 200 words, but nonetheless but we have MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH for a reason. I'm not quite sure of the protocol for a second opinion when there is disagreement over it. Perhaps we can still reach agreement in some manner though. It wouldn't take much more than reordering some of the lead comments and rewording a couple of word choices for me to find the lead agreeable. And then a thorough commentary on the approval of criteria 2–4 would address my other comments. — Bilorv ( talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Tbhotch. Thank you for your review. For some reason, I did not get a notice about it on my talk page, but I am aware of it nevertheless. I will respond to all your comments in the very near future. I will start off with two points.
Firstly, regarding the vexatious issue of the inclusion or non-inclusion of "the" before someone's profession, I think that it is unfortunate that a good article review should be used to insist on a change to what should surely be considered an optional style issue. Some may consider the inclusion of the definite article in this context an error; others in good faith may disagree. See for example the Good article review for Stephen McNallen. I conducted the review. I commented at one stage, "One sentence reads, 'The sociologist of religion Jennifer Snook described it as "the first national Heathen organization in the United States". You may disagree, but personally I would not have begun a sentence of that kind with "the" ', to which the editor who nominated the article responded with "I'm going to disagree here, if that's okay; at a number of previous GAs and FAs I've found that there are editors who always insist on the addition of "the" when referring to someone's professional position". I accepted the response, firstly because I would have been embarrassed to try to dictate minor points like this, as if to force someone to agree with me when they had a reasonable basis for not doing so, and secondly because on reconsideration I decided that the response was actually correct and that it does read better to include "the" in cases like this. I am not responsible for what Grammarly does or does not claim is an error. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 03:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Secondly, you comment, ""The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?" Well, I obviously don't know, as I have not read the review. In my opinion, it is helpful to know that a book was reviewed by a particular person in a particular publication, even without knowing what was actually said in the review, since it gives the reader some idea of the kind of impact a book made, and provides them with at least a starting point for further research (they can try to look up the review for themselves, if they care about it). Nevertheless, I will remove mention of the Billet review if you think I should. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 03:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Other things.
1. You suggested that "traditional psychoanalytic technique" should be changed to either "techniques" or "the traditional psychoanalytic technique". I've changed it to "techniques".
2. You pointed out a typo ("psychological professions failure"). Thanks. Fixed it.
3. You noted that I should add the acronym for "American Psychiatric Association". Done.
4. "If Drescher said it quote it because without quotes sounds like a POV". I am simply noting what Drescher says in his article ("The Therapist's Authority and the Patient's Sexuality"). He does indeed use the term "authoritarian". I am not sure why simply reporting what he says "sounds like a POV", but I will add quotation marks around "authoritarian".
5. You suggest that "does not apply" sounds more natural than "is not applicable". You have a point. I may make the change. However, it pays to remember that sometimes a given phrase that does not sound as "natural" as another phrase actually reflects the language used in the source more accurately. This may be such a case. I do not currently have access to the Weinrich article, but I have requested it at Resource Requests, and hopefully will have it soon. I will read it again and reconsider this one.
6. You suggest that "including the American Psychological Association" should be changed to "including the APA". I'm confused by this suggestion. "APA" is already used in the article as an acronym for American Psychiatric Association. It is just an unfortunate fact that "American Psychiatric Association" and "American Psychological Association" have names that produce the same acronym ("APA"). As "APA" has already been used in the article as an acronym for "American Psychiatric Assocation", I cannot use it as an acronym for "American Psychological Association" as well, as you suggest I should, without creating confusion between the two APAs.
7. You object to the phrase "According to Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them". I am not sure exactly what the problem with the phrase is, in your view. Nevertheless, I have changed it, to "In an interview with Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them".
8. You note a number of minor errors in the citations for online articles. I have made the corrections you suggested, with one exception, noted immediately below (in this case I don't believe I have actually made a mistake).
9. You suggest that I have made an error in the date I gave for the article by Gwen Aviles (the article can be seen at https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/amazon-removes-controversial-books-father-conversion-therapy-n1026446). I checked the article again. What it states is, "July 4, 2019, 9:09 AM NZST". That corresponds to the date I gave in the article, so I don't see that I have made an error. I don't know why you would see "July 3, 2019, 4:09 PM CDT". For all I know, the date NBC news provides may depend on where in the world you are (websites can determine this and alter content accordingly). I'm in New Zealand, which appears to be very far away from where you are (different time zone).
10. You suggest that the article uses the word "that" too much. I am perfectly open to suggestions as to how else it could be written, or words that I could use instead of "that". Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 05:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Back to "The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?" I would say, remove it and restore it once you know what he said because it doesn't add anything to the article. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Sxologit wrote just yesterday on the talkpage: "[The author] essentially given the books detractors and it’s supporters equal weight despite fringe views." Equally, User:Bilorv wrote, "In particular, as a highly contentious article on a fringe issue, the article needs thorough checking to ensure that it presents the medical consensus correctly".
This article is not about a fringe theory, conversion therapy, this article is about a book whose key elements are fringe theories and since its publication has been used by conversion "therapist" as a kind of Bible. On the Origin of Species, a featured article about what few consider a fringe theory, evolution, and it presents the elements of what the topic is: an essay about evolution based upon natural selection, not evolutionary biology. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality presents the elements of what the topic is: an essay about a man who is using deprecated Freud's theories to develop his own theory, not reparative therapy.
Sxologist further said: "This is like giving climate change denialism 50/50 air time with a credible scientist." 97/100 scientific studies agree global warming exists, as noted by
Scientific consensus on climate change, while it also says that "and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors", neither Scientific consensus on climate change nor Climate change develop this further, so what's the point of even mentioning it. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality at the very least gives "detractors and it's supporters equal weight". Of course, this book and topic was, is and will be praised by conservative religious people and LGBT opposers, and of course, it was, is and will be panned by the rest, should it be developed to the point it reads as "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received praise by few people, conservative people and conversion therapists like always, while it was panned by the majority: liberals, human right activists, psychology associations, and pretty much anyone who didn't praise it, PS, if you find a copy burn this book or you support it." Of course not, and I think that's what's going on here with the
WP:FRINGE comments. It could be very simplistic to say "this article gives the impression that reparative therapy is OK because it doesn't include more sources criticizing it to the point the article says it's trash literature, and any source supporting it is dubious and has no opinion in the discussion. For example, Sxologist said in the talk page I. Reed Payne is unqualified to make the said statements, but what makes journalist Gwen Aviles qualified to say conversion therapy is pseudoscientific. One can argue that yes, it's a statement that could be removed, but as of now, nobody opposed its inclusion—I do, I find it out of place and a irrelevant opinion, so is "Daniel Reynolds reported in The Advocate in February 2019 that the gay writer Damian Barr had criticized Amazon for selling the books, arguing that they were discredited and harmful", but my opinion is not the last word here. This leads me to think that apparently there are double standards regarding fringe theories, by one side anyone who supports them is to be questioned and considered unreliable ipso facto, while anyone who opposes them should not be questioned and its opinion is appropriate no matter what, and this is clearly an unneutral point of view. And don't get me wrong, as I read the article I could describe the book as archaic, contradictory and simplistic, per the same reasons Payne said, Payne, who wrote a text supporting the book.
Personally I don't find the article to be problematic—I honestly expected to find an article giving undue positive weight to conversion therapy and it isn't—if anything the subject is problematic. But what apparently is being problematic is that it doesn't go further on scientific and psychologic points discrediting conversion therapies to the point it stops being about a book and the article converts to a sub-article of conversion therapy. At this point, I'm torn between approving it or rejecting it, because if I approve it I already know it will end up at WP:GAR or similar venues for approving a controversial topic without giving it more weight to science, as if we needed scientists telling us at every conversion therapy page that it is not reliable and it has been discredited, but if I reject it practically will be another WP:PR. However, while I find "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each", and this is the first instance I find readers opposing its neutrality, I think approving it will be more problematic for the nominator and the article than for me for approving it for not considering others' opinions on the topic. Because of this, I officially withdraw from reviewing it. @ Freeknowledgecreator: sorry for the withdrawal, but that's the issue with controversial topics, and in this case, the audience was not impressed so I have to leave. I will leave the GA3 page available, but it's up to you if you want to continue with the process. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv provided a second opinion. He stated, "The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge." Bilorv, the first paragraph of the lead does not "challenge" Nicolosi's views because evaluating them is not its purpose. Rather the purpose of that paragraph is to describe what Nicolosi's are. Describing what Nicolosi's views are is something the lead obviously has to do. Describing Nicolosi's views is not same as endorsing them or suggesting that they are correct. The use of the term "presents" could be seen as a way of subtly bluring the distinction between describing and endorsing. If the phrase "presents Nicolosi's views" is a way of implying that simply describing Nicolosi's views is the same as endorsing them, my response is that that is simply untrue. Evaluating Nicolosi's views is the purpose of the second paragraph of the lead; the evaluation of them there is of course mainly negative, simply because the responses Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received have been mainly negative.
You note that, "One has to read to the second paragraph" to get the criticism of Nicolosi. Respectfully, I don't believe that is a problem. One can reasonably expect that someone who reads the lead won't stop at just the first paragraph and somehow come away with the idea that Nicolosi's views are correct. You state that it needs to be clear that critics of Nicolosi, "include mainstream professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association"; that is clear. The position of the American Psychiatric Association is noted very clearly in the lead. You say that, "APA's specific criticisms of reparative therapy and specifically of Nicolosi need be mentioned in the lead"; I believe they already are, to the extent that such criticisms are appropriate to the lead, which after all is only a summary and is not supposed to go into full detail, which is the purpose of the remainder of the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
criticisms are not helpful without specific suggestions for improvement. Please make such suggestions.I believe that I did, but I'm happy to elaborate. The change I recommended is quite small and so I'm not sure why it's being met with such a huge wall of resistance, particularly if you are not concretely clear as to what the changes I have proposed are:
The American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation, which are based on theories that conflict with its position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.Where it goes and how best to make the first paragraph flow is then a question with several possible answers, and one that I now put forward is this:
The reviews section seems like an attempt to appear like it gives fair weight, but you’ve essentially given the books detractors and it’s supporters equal weight despite fringe views. For example, it opens with:
“Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received a positive review from the psychologist I. Reed Payne in Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy...”
Who? And why is his positive review given the introduction as though his opinion means anything? From what I can see he isn’t particularly notable or an expert on the topic. A religious psychotherapy journal is hardly mainstream.
Then it's with more notable researchers:
“...A mixed review from the sex researcher James D. Weinrich in the Journal of Sex Research,[17] and a negative review from Friedman in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.[18] The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine.”
Okay, but it also received a lot more criticism than this lets on, and it isn't undue weight to give them mentions since it is a fringe theory. This is like giving climate change denialism 50/50 air time with a credible scientist.
Then there’s this quote mining:
“Joseph Nicolosi Jr. defended his father's books, and noted that one man credited Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality with saving his marriage”
Yeah... according to Nicolosi. Including the defence of his father is of course fair, but including that quote about him “saving” someone’s marriage seems at best dubious considering it’s non verifiable and they’ve never shown who this man was. ‘Noted’ implies it happened.
I had my edits on Joseph Nicolosi reverted by you for ‘quote mining’ and because his interview with Stephen Fry was somehow not notable. Maybe you were correct to do so. But this wiki is quite heavy on the praise of fringe views. Sxologist ( talk) 17:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
About the claim that A religious psychotherapy journal is hardly mainstream: I do not accept this claim. More than 80% of people in the world count themselves as being religious, and that means that a religious POV is a mainstream POV. Fortunately, Wikipedia need not exactly follow what's popular, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that religion (or psychology, for that matter) is not mainstream.
More relevantly, an academic journal about religion and psychotherapy is likely to be one of the best sources for information about how religion and psychology interact. I would expect such a subject to include everything from how to deal with a person whose individual interests diverge from their religious mandates (e.g., a gay man whose religion forbids gay sex or a divorced person whose religion forbids remarriage) to what people think they're getting out of their religious activities.
That said, this particular journal is not one that I would recommend without qualification. With a quick search, it does not appear to be indexed in the usual places. I couldn't find an impact factor, but it doesn't seem to get cited much. It appears to be a journal specific to a single, smaller religious group. While it is probably fair and appropriate to include some information along these lines, this is probably not the best source to be using. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Continuing on from the discussion at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality/GA2, recall that MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH requires that the first paragraph of an article should "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view" and "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". Note that NPOV is more than just how information is written, but also which information is written about. (For instance, it wouldn't be NPOV to omit all positive reviews of the book in this article.)
In the case of this article, the broad context of the book is that its contents are considered pseudoscience by the psychiatric community. To this end, it's important that it receives mention in the first paragraph. Luckily, it currently receives mention in the second paragraph so the only change required is to move a piece of information from the second paragraph to the first.
I suggest this piece of information should be: The
American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation, which are based on theories that conflict with its position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Where it goes and how best to make the first paragraph flow is then a question with several possible answers, two options including:
Does anyone have any policy-based opposition to either one of these suggestions? If not, I'll implement one soon. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't the pseudoscientific nature of reparative therapy need mentioning in the lead as well as the body, as per WP:FRINGE? @ Bilorv: there seems to be disagreement about this. Looks like some thing its pseudoscientific nature should not be mentioned at all? Simply leaving it in the article on conversion therapy... -- Sxologist ( talk) 10:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Markworthen, you have twice now changed the article's rating from a "B" to a "C". You are of course absolutely entitled to your opinion that the article deserves a "C". What you are not entitled to do is to ignore the views of other editors and change the rating, in the face of opposition, and without agreement or any effort at discussing the matter. Sadads was the user who originally gave the article a "B", not me. He commented above, "compared to other book and non-fiction articles its a B class article: it thoroughly explores the literature, provides adequate summary and expected subjects for such an article, and does so with readable text and Wikipedia-adequete style and formatting." That seems fair. You have given no detailed justification for your view, and I see no reason why it must take precedence over that of Sadads. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 18:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality meets this WikiProject's (Books/Psychology/LGBT Studies) C-class criteria, but not B-class. Two other editors disagree. I am therefore posting this question at the three WikiProjects with interest in the article ... Please weigh in at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality#Article rating. (wikilinks omitted; edited slightly to make sense here)
Critics faulted Nicolosi's scholarship, and argued that he provided an inadequate discussion of biological influences on sexual orientation and incorrectly viewed homosexuality as pathological; some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific.was meant to sum up part of the "Reception" section. "Critics" in this context means "people who have offered evaluations of the book", not "people who have expressed negative views of reparative therapy". (I was going to suggest replacing "critics" with "reviewers", but several of the evaluations are not strictly speaking book reviews.)
Critics echo the broader scientific consensus that discredits conversion therapy as pseudoscientific and conflicting with general guidelines for psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals which oppose reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation.is a less accurate summary of the book's reception: the reviewers didn't all make reference to the broader scientific consensus or the guidelines for mental health professionals. Cheers, gnu 57 13:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Darn. I had hoped we were close to resolving our disagreements via compromise edits. Alas, that has not happened. I'm thinking that Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be the next best dispute resolution step. IMHO reparative therapy is a notable fringe theory, thus articles about reparative therapy satisfy the notability requirement. It is not notability that concerns me; it is the undue weight given to this fringe theory, using "but it's an article about a book, not an article about conversion therapy" as a cover for portraying reparative therapy as a scientific approach accepted by a significant minority of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals. And I could be wrong. ¶ If another editor starts an RfC, I will hold off on WP:FT/N. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
.... here is the entire RfC discussion...
To what extent should this article discuss the scientific consensus on reparative/conversion therapy's potential harms and benefits?
Participants on both sides of this debate believe the other side's preferences would constitute undue weight. [a]
One side believes that devoting substantial discussion of the aforementioned scientific consensus to an article about a book constitutes undue weight.
The other side believes that failure to adequately discuss the medical and psychological consensus constitutes an dereliction of duty (so to speak) to ensure that readers understand that "reparative therapy" is a fringe theory that harms patients.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This contrasts with the American Psychiatric Association's position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and its opposition to reparative therapy and similar treatments.This sentence is very similar to one in the second paragraph, so we basically just need to move a sentence up a paragraph. As for the body of the article, I do not see any need for a change as the scientific consensus is already covered. It seems to me currently that all perspectives on the book are covered extensively in the body, while not violating WP:DUE. — Bilorv ( talk) 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality influenced the practice of conversion therapy. The legal scholar Marie-Amélie George called the book [in 2017] "a standard text for reparative therapists", noting that it re-popularized ideas that had begun to be discarded following the declassification of homosexuality.I'm not seeing any evidence that there was any scientific basis for reparative therapy, ever; rather, I see that the APA reaffirmed its opposition to it in response to the book (albeit 9 years later). Whether public views are based on understandable gay panic or repugnant gay panic, if the book's author never attempted to participate meaningfully in the scientific process in development of theories and treatments described in this book then it's WP:FRINGE. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We should note that it is pseudoscience. I agree that the best way to deal with the fact that these claims are pseudoscientific is to address it in a background section. That said, the section could be a bit less preachy, and instead put it in historical context (ie when the book was written, what the prevailing scientific & societal views were then, when that changed etc). This can also be done in the Reception section, which might be broken down into how it influenced the "field" of conversion therapy, critiques of it etc. That section is far too wordy and needs to be broken up in to sub-sections or separate sections. I also agree that the photo of Sigmund Freud shouldn't be included. This article is not about him, and the book is not one of his works. His photo is distracting and arguably misleading. It is good that the lead notes that conversion therapy "is banned in numerous jurisdictions". I think the article is rightly going to leave readers with the impression that this is a fringe book, and of course our job is to explain what it is, what it is about and put it in context. It is a difficult task to do that without lending credence to pseudoscience or going too far the other way and turning the article into an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Our article on Mein Kampf might be a helpful place to look to see how to attempt such balance when discussing a very controversial book, although I am not sure we have reached the correct balance there. It seems a bit banal to me.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Although we have not resolved the stalemate, we have received many very helpful observations, suggestions, and points of order (for lack of a better term). IMHO the article is of higher quality now than when this RfC began. Obviously we need to keep working to forge a compromise, but I am optimistic we will get there. ¶ On a more personal level, something that has helped me a lot recently has been to pledge (mainly to myself) to follow good Old-fashioned Wikipedian Values. It's not easy! I am definitely still a work in progress, but for one thing I feel less stress when edit disagreements emerge. I also hope I am getting better at "seek first to understand; then seek to be understood" (my slightly different phrasing of the Covey principle). I discovered the Old-fashioned Wikipedian Values group while working through some intense frustration, which I described in a brief personal essay called Feeling misunderstood and attacked. I don't know if any of that is helpful to you (anyone reading this) but I offer it because I've seen too many really good editors leave, which is a loss to Wikipedia's millions of readers (learners). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Notes
Change:
To:
References
There is a growing body of evidence that conversion therapy not only does not work, but also can be extremely harmful, resulting in depression, social isolation from family and friends, low self-esteem, internalized homophobia, and even attempted suicide.
Conversion therapy can be harmful.
In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation. ... The validity, efficacy and ethics of clinical attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation have been challenged. To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments. (references omitted)
The additional text and sources are from the lead of Conversion therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views){ and represent a consensus high level neutral summary of the scientific status of Nicolosi's ideas; this reflects the clear and unnambiguous consensus above that this status should be included.
Can this be improved? Sure, all text can. Is the article better without the scientific status? Consensus above is very clear: no, it is worse, to the point of failing NPOV.
Freeknowledgecreator has tried several arguments for this inclusion, starting with "GA needs MOAR PHOTO". That's frankly bizarre. He's prepared to edit war on any article where it's rmeoived so I'd be interested to hear what the great point of principle is that requires this gratuitous image of Freud to be included, when the text alone seems to me to be quite sufficient.
Per WP:PRIMARY, "X partisan conservative/liberal source criticised Y thin that partisan conservatives/liberals hate, source, X highly partisan conservative/liberal source" is always a bad idea. We already know that the right hates gays, we don't need right-wing sources saying that Amazon's commercial decision not to sell a book beloved of the anti-LGBT movement is evil suppression. We know that's what they think. The fact of Amazon removing iut form sale is notable. The howls of incoherent rage formt he right are not, unless we have a reliable secondary source that describes it and establishes its significance. It's information not knowledge. The more contentious the topic, the less we shjould include crappy sources like the Washington Examiner, Vice, the Daily Signal and the like. Guy ( help!) 14:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I added a bit to the Background section ( diff) with this edit note: "I added what I started to write for the "Background" (two sentences with citations). It seems to fit nicely at the beginning of what has already been added." I also copy edited one sentence in the lede ( diff): "copy edit for clarity and NPOV". Those are all the edits I plan to make until we either reach consensus or go to the next stage of dispute resolution. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I (again) removed an erroneous statement from the Freud photograph caption ( diff). That statement is: "Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." Here's an example of what Freud actually said:
Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too. [1]
Can we agree to leave out this invalid statement? (See also Homosexuality and psychology#Freud and psychoanalysis). If you (anyone) believes it should stay, please present reliable evidence that Freud "viewed homosexuality as pathological". ¶ On a related point, I said previously that I didn't have a strong opinion about whether or not to include the Freud photograph. One of the arguments against including the photo is that it lends credence to Nicolosi's hypothesis. The statement (that had been) added to the caption also communicates to the uninformed reader that Nicolosi's hypothesis—that homosexuality is pathological—is credible because Sigmund Freud (allegedly) thought the same. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Markworthen, I am sure you are acting in good faith, but the statement you removed ("Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological") is not "erroneous". It is clearly, demonstrably, and unambiguously true. Please consider that it is not a statement about Freud's views, but about what Nicolosi says Freud's views were. Nicolosi does indeed write that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological. You may argue that what Nicolosi writes is mistaken, if you want, but it is nonetheless true that this is what he writes. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You write that the image suggests that "Nicolosi's hypothesis—that homosexuality is pathological—is credible because Sigmund Freud (allegedly) thought the same". For the record, Nicolosi does not use the term "pathological" to describe homosexuality. Nor does a simple statement about what Nicolosi states in his book in any sense suggest that what he states is correct. You are reading something into an image caption that it does not suggest and was never meant to suggest. Although I can see that several editors support JzG's view that the image endorses "Nicolosi's fallacious - and, it turns out bogus - appeal to authority", I find that view to be unsupported. No, including an image of Freud in the article does not lend any support to Nicolosi's views. The image is just an image, not a statement that Nicolosi's views are correct. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I also have to note that it is quite mistaken to believe that you can resolve the question of what Freud thought about homosexuality by a single quotation from him. Freud wrote a lot about homosexuality, he made many different claims at different times, and the various claims are not necessarily all consistent with each other. One single quotation - a quotation not from Freud's psychoanalytic writings but simply from a letter to a mother who was freaked out because her son was gay - definitely does not settle the issue of what Freud's views were. Obviously Freud's purpose in that letter was to try to soothe a distressed woman and calm her down. It is specious to look at a personal letter written for that purpose as a definitive statement of his views on homosexuality. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
I think we can reach a compromise on the Reception section. I suggest the following.
In a very good faith effort to organize references, an editor sought to consolidate citations into reference groups ( diff). Unfortunately, many of the references listed under "medical associations" and "organizations" were not actually medical associations and organizations. I set about to organize the references accurately, to update citations, eliminate old or less relevant citations (I did not eliminate any references that favor or support reparative therapy), include relevant organizations and eliminate less relevant groups (I did not eliminate any references that favor or support reparative therapy). This diff contains all the edits I made this afternoon in that regard. I ended up with some stray references, so to speak. I cannot discern where they belong, so I will list them here. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{harvnb|Ford|2001}}
{{cite journal|last1=Cruz|first1=David B.|title=Controlling Desires: Sexual Orientation Conversion and the Limits of Knowledge and Law|journal=Southern California Law Review|date=1999|volume=72|page=1297|url=http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf|accessdate=25 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919071205/http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf|archive-date=19 September 2017|url-status=dead}}
{{citation |last=Yoshino |first=Kenji |title=Covering |year=2002 |journal=Yale Law Journal |volume=111 |issue=4 |pages=769–939 |url=http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/covering|doi=10.2307/797566 |jstor=797566 }}
{{Harvnb|Haldeman|1991|p=149}}
{{cite journal|url = http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf|title = The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy|volume = 4|issue = 1|journal = Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies|date = December 1999|accessdate = March 16, 2018|last = Haldeman|first = Douglas C.|pages = 1–4 |quote=Conversion therapy can be harmful.}}
{{harvnb|Glassgold|2009|p=91}}: "As noted previously, early research indicates that aversive techniques have been found to have very limited benefits as well as potentially harmful effects."
{{harvnb|Glassgold|2009}}
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI, Freeknowledgecreator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Skoojal. Guy ( help!) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit: diff. I disagree with a number of the changes, including removing all of the book reviews. gnu 57 12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Conversion therapy,a therapeutic approach that departs from traditional psychoanalytic techniques.... This is a highly misleading presentation of the history of conversion therapy.
Usable for attributed opinions means not usable for facts.: Again, see the entry for TAC on RSP. There is no consensus as to general reliability; there is consensus that it can be used for attributed opinion (as it is being used here). ¶ First Things is an influential and generally well-regarded American print periodical. "The Public Square"/"While We're At It" is a long-running feature in which the editor comments on noteworthy recent writing, political developments and other issues. (FT resulted from the merger of two other publications, one of which was a newsletter. Neuhaus' Public Square columns were very popular and are collected in several volumes.) Generally speaking, editorial content in a reliable published source is not self-published: it receives oversight from professional editing staff other than the author. I don't think that Reno's having been cancel-cultured last week for dumb remarks on Twitter has any bearing on the quality of his past professional work on a different subject. Whether or not you agree with Reno's views is irrelevant to the question of whether his discussion of Dreher's comments indicates that Dreher's comments are significant. Cheers, gnu 57 18:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Joseph Nicolosi on 01:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC). The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was merge. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Markworthen ( talk · contribs) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing this article.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is definitely better than most articles, but needs some work to reach Good Article status. Here are some examples from the Introduction (lead; lede). I have copied-and-pasted only the plain text, i.e., no italics or bold, no hyperlinks, etc. A word or words in [square brackets] should be added to make the sentence grammatically correct, more comprehensible, etc. {My comments are italicized and contained within single curly brackets}.
Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about conversion therapy by | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Neither I nor Earwig's Copyvio Detector identified any copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Thank you for reviewing the article. I note with regret that you have made changes to do it that do not appear to be supported by reliable sources. For example, you added the following to the lead: "The book remained available on the Amazon platform, but only from other booksellers." No reliable source was provided for the claim that "The book remained available on the Amazon platform, but only from other booksellers", so that statement must be removed, as an unacceptable form of original research, per WP:NOR. If my disagreement with you about this or other issues means that you fail the article, so be it. I am not concerned with getting the article passed above all else: my main concern is with keeping the article accurate. Doing all concerned a favor by stating this directly and at the beginning of this process. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 01:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I flatly disagree with you that the definite article should not be added before "psychologist". It lowers the quality of the article to remove it. I say this based on my experience with previous discussions of the issue. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I flatly disagree with you that "who draws on work by previous authors" is unclear in importance, or vague, or that it is "best to leave out of lead". Its importance should be perfectly obvious. It makes a fundamental difference to how a reader views a work like Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. It makes all the difference in the world whether an author like Nicolosi is putting forward basically original or novel ideas, or whether his ideas are basically derivative of other authors. Nicolosi's ideas about homosexuality and its causes are anything but novel. He is essentially just restating other people's ideas, in slightly different form - the "who draws on work by previous authors" part makes that apparent. As for "vague", vagueness refers to lack of clarity. It is perfectly clear what the statement means and as such it is not vague. You should not have removed it. Doing so lowers the quality of the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You state that "departs from traditional psychoanalytic technique" is ungrammatical. If you believe it is ungrammatical it is up to you to explain why. I am open to suggestions about that sentence should be written instead. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You state that "prepare for heterosexual marriage" is vague. No, it is not. Vagueness means lack of clarity about meaning. It is clear what "prepare for heterosexual marriage" means. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The suggestion that the lead should not include the publication date sentence seems to fly in the face of the manual of style's lead section standards, one of the GA criteria that this review needs to adhere to, and infoboxes should not be used as a reason to limit prose material in the lead. The information should remain (though the word "first" is unnecessary as noted). BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tbhotch ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of the previous reviewer withdrawn. Due to the nominator requested, and I cite, "If you believe it is ungrammatical it is up to you to explain why" I will request at the end a second opinion on prose. I have already read the article once, and while prose is not bad, the inquiries made by Mark and Bluemoon are indeed valid. Right now, the only comment I will say is that
depart something does not mean the same
depart from something means. 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Article on hold/wait for a second opinion. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
My main concern would be 1(a). For example, there are 65 "that"s in the article, and as far as I know English language does not use 'that' that much (no pun intended). © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Second opinion:
I do not see a major 1(a) concern. I'm not clear on where the article is overusing "that", a very common word, or why 65 uses of the term amongst a 1800 word article is an issue. I do, however, note a lack of absence of evaluating the article under criteria #2(a)–(c), #3 and #4. In particular, as a highly contentious article on a
fringe issue, the article needs thorough checking to ensure that it presents the medical consensus correctly and always provides mainstream medical information alongside any claims which are not mainstream. Such checks have not been justified by comments at this GA review or the previous partially-completed one. The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge. One has to read to the second paragraph to see any mention that conversion therapy, including reparative therapy, is a pseudoscience. Even then, such claims are attributed vaguely to "some" or to "critics". It needs to be clear that these "some"/"critics" include mainstream professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association, and the APA's specific criticisms of reparative therapy and specifically of Nicolosi need be mentioned in the lead.
The body of the article goes a lot of the way to making sure it presents fringe viewpoints appropriately, but this needs thorough evaluation as well, as there may be areas which need improvement. For instance, spotchecks of references should be done to check that due weight is given to them depending on the depth and relevance of their comments.
Though unfortunate to drag out this process further given that the article was in the GAN queue for several months, and has now had two reviewers, I am afraid a full review is yet to be done. It would not be appropriate to the standards of GA quality to pass this article without a full review being done; but the article should not be failed without giving the primary contributor a fair chance at addressing concerns in a full review. I recommend that Tbhotch should reply saying whether they are willing to evaluate the article with detailed explanations under criteria #2(a)–(c), #3 and #4, and if not that another reviewer should do a full review of these criteria.
I separately note some civility issues that contributed to the abandoning of the first review and may be relevant to this review, and encourage the nominator to be patient, polite and willing to accept feedback. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
notin your MOS:LEAD quote
not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows, giving the opposite meaning. While the article is not about reparative therapy, it presents information related to reparative therapy, including a detailed account of an individual's view on conversion therapy, so WP:FRINGE applies. This is uncontroversial. MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH reads that the first paragraph should
define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view [...] It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.Of course, listing Nicolosi's views only is not a neutral point of view—we all agree on this because we are agreed that there should be some description of criticism of the book in this article. Hence, the summary of the book must not be the only view provided in the lead paragraph, so that the surrounding context can be established. The reason this guideline is present is because many readers only read the first paragraph. It may be that none of us ever do this, or that we wish readers would read further, or that we eyeroll at people who do not bother to read a measly 200 words, but nonetheless but we have MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH for a reason. I'm not quite sure of the protocol for a second opinion when there is disagreement over it. Perhaps we can still reach agreement in some manner though. It wouldn't take much more than reordering some of the lead comments and rewording a couple of word choices for me to find the lead agreeable. And then a thorough commentary on the approval of criteria 2–4 would address my other comments. — Bilorv ( talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Tbhotch. Thank you for your review. For some reason, I did not get a notice about it on my talk page, but I am aware of it nevertheless. I will respond to all your comments in the very near future. I will start off with two points.
Firstly, regarding the vexatious issue of the inclusion or non-inclusion of "the" before someone's profession, I think that it is unfortunate that a good article review should be used to insist on a change to what should surely be considered an optional style issue. Some may consider the inclusion of the definite article in this context an error; others in good faith may disagree. See for example the Good article review for Stephen McNallen. I conducted the review. I commented at one stage, "One sentence reads, 'The sociologist of religion Jennifer Snook described it as "the first national Heathen organization in the United States". You may disagree, but personally I would not have begun a sentence of that kind with "the" ', to which the editor who nominated the article responded with "I'm going to disagree here, if that's okay; at a number of previous GAs and FAs I've found that there are editors who always insist on the addition of "the" when referring to someone's professional position". I accepted the response, firstly because I would have been embarrassed to try to dictate minor points like this, as if to force someone to agree with me when they had a reasonable basis for not doing so, and secondly because on reconsideration I decided that the response was actually correct and that it does read better to include "the" in cases like this. I am not responsible for what Grammarly does or does not claim is an error. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 03:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Secondly, you comment, ""The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?" Well, I obviously don't know, as I have not read the review. In my opinion, it is helpful to know that a book was reviewed by a particular person in a particular publication, even without knowing what was actually said in the review, since it gives the reader some idea of the kind of impact a book made, and provides them with at least a starting point for further research (they can try to look up the review for themselves, if they care about it). Nevertheless, I will remove mention of the Billet review if you think I should. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 03:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Other things.
1. You suggested that "traditional psychoanalytic technique" should be changed to either "techniques" or "the traditional psychoanalytic technique". I've changed it to "techniques".
2. You pointed out a typo ("psychological professions failure"). Thanks. Fixed it.
3. You noted that I should add the acronym for "American Psychiatric Association". Done.
4. "If Drescher said it quote it because without quotes sounds like a POV". I am simply noting what Drescher says in his article ("The Therapist's Authority and the Patient's Sexuality"). He does indeed use the term "authoritarian". I am not sure why simply reporting what he says "sounds like a POV", but I will add quotation marks around "authoritarian".
5. You suggest that "does not apply" sounds more natural than "is not applicable". You have a point. I may make the change. However, it pays to remember that sometimes a given phrase that does not sound as "natural" as another phrase actually reflects the language used in the source more accurately. This may be such a case. I do not currently have access to the Weinrich article, but I have requested it at Resource Requests, and hopefully will have it soon. I will read it again and reconsider this one.
6. You suggest that "including the American Psychological Association" should be changed to "including the APA". I'm confused by this suggestion. "APA" is already used in the article as an acronym for American Psychiatric Association. It is just an unfortunate fact that "American Psychiatric Association" and "American Psychological Association" have names that produce the same acronym ("APA"). As "APA" has already been used in the article as an acronym for "American Psychiatric Assocation", I cannot use it as an acronym for "American Psychological Association" as well, as you suggest I should, without creating confusion between the two APAs.
7. You object to the phrase "According to Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them". I am not sure exactly what the problem with the phrase is, in your view. Nevertheless, I have changed it, to "In an interview with Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them".
8. You note a number of minor errors in the citations for online articles. I have made the corrections you suggested, with one exception, noted immediately below (in this case I don't believe I have actually made a mistake).
9. You suggest that I have made an error in the date I gave for the article by Gwen Aviles (the article can be seen at https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/amazon-removes-controversial-books-father-conversion-therapy-n1026446). I checked the article again. What it states is, "July 4, 2019, 9:09 AM NZST". That corresponds to the date I gave in the article, so I don't see that I have made an error. I don't know why you would see "July 3, 2019, 4:09 PM CDT". For all I know, the date NBC news provides may depend on where in the world you are (websites can determine this and alter content accordingly). I'm in New Zealand, which appears to be very far away from where you are (different time zone).
10. You suggest that the article uses the word "that" too much. I am perfectly open to suggestions as to how else it could be written, or words that I could use instead of "that". Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 05:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Back to "The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?" I would say, remove it and restore it once you know what he said because it doesn't add anything to the article. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Sxologit wrote just yesterday on the talkpage: "[The author] essentially given the books detractors and it’s supporters equal weight despite fringe views." Equally, User:Bilorv wrote, "In particular, as a highly contentious article on a fringe issue, the article needs thorough checking to ensure that it presents the medical consensus correctly".
This article is not about a fringe theory, conversion therapy, this article is about a book whose key elements are fringe theories and since its publication has been used by conversion "therapist" as a kind of Bible. On the Origin of Species, a featured article about what few consider a fringe theory, evolution, and it presents the elements of what the topic is: an essay about evolution based upon natural selection, not evolutionary biology. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality presents the elements of what the topic is: an essay about a man who is using deprecated Freud's theories to develop his own theory, not reparative therapy.
Sxologist further said: "This is like giving climate change denialism 50/50 air time with a credible scientist." 97/100 scientific studies agree global warming exists, as noted by
Scientific consensus on climate change, while it also says that "and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors", neither Scientific consensus on climate change nor Climate change develop this further, so what's the point of even mentioning it. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality at the very least gives "detractors and it's supporters equal weight". Of course, this book and topic was, is and will be praised by conservative religious people and LGBT opposers, and of course, it was, is and will be panned by the rest, should it be developed to the point it reads as "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received praise by few people, conservative people and conversion therapists like always, while it was panned by the majority: liberals, human right activists, psychology associations, and pretty much anyone who didn't praise it, PS, if you find a copy burn this book or you support it." Of course not, and I think that's what's going on here with the
WP:FRINGE comments. It could be very simplistic to say "this article gives the impression that reparative therapy is OK because it doesn't include more sources criticizing it to the point the article says it's trash literature, and any source supporting it is dubious and has no opinion in the discussion. For example, Sxologist said in the talk page I. Reed Payne is unqualified to make the said statements, but what makes journalist Gwen Aviles qualified to say conversion therapy is pseudoscientific. One can argue that yes, it's a statement that could be removed, but as of now, nobody opposed its inclusion—I do, I find it out of place and a irrelevant opinion, so is "Daniel Reynolds reported in The Advocate in February 2019 that the gay writer Damian Barr had criticized Amazon for selling the books, arguing that they were discredited and harmful", but my opinion is not the last word here. This leads me to think that apparently there are double standards regarding fringe theories, by one side anyone who supports them is to be questioned and considered unreliable ipso facto, while anyone who opposes them should not be questioned and its opinion is appropriate no matter what, and this is clearly an unneutral point of view. And don't get me wrong, as I read the article I could describe the book as archaic, contradictory and simplistic, per the same reasons Payne said, Payne, who wrote a text supporting the book.
Personally I don't find the article to be problematic—I honestly expected to find an article giving undue positive weight to conversion therapy and it isn't—if anything the subject is problematic. But what apparently is being problematic is that it doesn't go further on scientific and psychologic points discrediting conversion therapies to the point it stops being about a book and the article converts to a sub-article of conversion therapy. At this point, I'm torn between approving it or rejecting it, because if I approve it I already know it will end up at WP:GAR or similar venues for approving a controversial topic without giving it more weight to science, as if we needed scientists telling us at every conversion therapy page that it is not reliable and it has been discredited, but if I reject it practically will be another WP:PR. However, while I find "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each", and this is the first instance I find readers opposing its neutrality, I think approving it will be more problematic for the nominator and the article than for me for approving it for not considering others' opinions on the topic. Because of this, I officially withdraw from reviewing it. @ Freeknowledgecreator: sorry for the withdrawal, but that's the issue with controversial topics, and in this case, the audience was not impressed so I have to leave. I will leave the GA3 page available, but it's up to you if you want to continue with the process. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv provided a second opinion. He stated, "The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge." Bilorv, the first paragraph of the lead does not "challenge" Nicolosi's views because evaluating them is not its purpose. Rather the purpose of that paragraph is to describe what Nicolosi's are. Describing what Nicolosi's views are is something the lead obviously has to do. Describing Nicolosi's views is not same as endorsing them or suggesting that they are correct. The use of the term "presents" could be seen as a way of subtly bluring the distinction between describing and endorsing. If the phrase "presents Nicolosi's views" is a way of implying that simply describing Nicolosi's views is the same as endorsing them, my response is that that is simply untrue. Evaluating Nicolosi's views is the purpose of the second paragraph of the lead; the evaluation of them there is of course mainly negative, simply because the responses Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received have been mainly negative.
You note that, "One has to read to the second paragraph" to get the criticism of Nicolosi. Respectfully, I don't believe that is a problem. One can reasonably expect that someone who reads the lead won't stop at just the first paragraph and somehow come away with the idea that Nicolosi's views are correct. You state that it needs to be clear that critics of Nicolosi, "include mainstream professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association"; that is clear. The position of the American Psychiatric Association is noted very clearly in the lead. You say that, "APA's specific criticisms of reparative therapy and specifically of Nicolosi need be mentioned in the lead"; I believe they already are, to the extent that such criticisms are appropriate to the lead, which after all is only a summary and is not supposed to go into full detail, which is the purpose of the remainder of the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
criticisms are not helpful without specific suggestions for improvement. Please make such suggestions.I believe that I did, but I'm happy to elaborate. The change I recommended is quite small and so I'm not sure why it's being met with such a huge wall of resistance, particularly if you are not concretely clear as to what the changes I have proposed are:
The American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation, which are based on theories that conflict with its position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.Where it goes and how best to make the first paragraph flow is then a question with several possible answers, and one that I now put forward is this:
The reviews section seems like an attempt to appear like it gives fair weight, but you’ve essentially given the books detractors and it’s supporters equal weight despite fringe views. For example, it opens with:
“Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received a positive review from the psychologist I. Reed Payne in Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy...”
Who? And why is his positive review given the introduction as though his opinion means anything? From what I can see he isn’t particularly notable or an expert on the topic. A religious psychotherapy journal is hardly mainstream.
Then it's with more notable researchers:
“...A mixed review from the sex researcher James D. Weinrich in the Journal of Sex Research,[17] and a negative review from Friedman in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.[18] The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine.”
Okay, but it also received a lot more criticism than this lets on, and it isn't undue weight to give them mentions since it is a fringe theory. This is like giving climate change denialism 50/50 air time with a credible scientist.
Then there’s this quote mining:
“Joseph Nicolosi Jr. defended his father's books, and noted that one man credited Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality with saving his marriage”
Yeah... according to Nicolosi. Including the defence of his father is of course fair, but including that quote about him “saving” someone’s marriage seems at best dubious considering it’s non verifiable and they’ve never shown who this man was. ‘Noted’ implies it happened.
I had my edits on Joseph Nicolosi reverted by you for ‘quote mining’ and because his interview with Stephen Fry was somehow not notable. Maybe you were correct to do so. But this wiki is quite heavy on the praise of fringe views. Sxologist ( talk) 17:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
About the claim that A religious psychotherapy journal is hardly mainstream: I do not accept this claim. More than 80% of people in the world count themselves as being religious, and that means that a religious POV is a mainstream POV. Fortunately, Wikipedia need not exactly follow what's popular, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that religion (or psychology, for that matter) is not mainstream.
More relevantly, an academic journal about religion and psychotherapy is likely to be one of the best sources for information about how religion and psychology interact. I would expect such a subject to include everything from how to deal with a person whose individual interests diverge from their religious mandates (e.g., a gay man whose religion forbids gay sex or a divorced person whose religion forbids remarriage) to what people think they're getting out of their religious activities.
That said, this particular journal is not one that I would recommend without qualification. With a quick search, it does not appear to be indexed in the usual places. I couldn't find an impact factor, but it doesn't seem to get cited much. It appears to be a journal specific to a single, smaller religious group. While it is probably fair and appropriate to include some information along these lines, this is probably not the best source to be using. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Continuing on from the discussion at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality/GA2, recall that MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH requires that the first paragraph of an article should "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view" and "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". Note that NPOV is more than just how information is written, but also which information is written about. (For instance, it wouldn't be NPOV to omit all positive reviews of the book in this article.)
In the case of this article, the broad context of the book is that its contents are considered pseudoscience by the psychiatric community. To this end, it's important that it receives mention in the first paragraph. Luckily, it currently receives mention in the second paragraph so the only change required is to move a piece of information from the second paragraph to the first.
I suggest this piece of information should be: The
American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation, which are based on theories that conflict with its position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Where it goes and how best to make the first paragraph flow is then a question with several possible answers, two options including:
Does anyone have any policy-based opposition to either one of these suggestions? If not, I'll implement one soon. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't the pseudoscientific nature of reparative therapy need mentioning in the lead as well as the body, as per WP:FRINGE? @ Bilorv: there seems to be disagreement about this. Looks like some thing its pseudoscientific nature should not be mentioned at all? Simply leaving it in the article on conversion therapy... -- Sxologist ( talk) 10:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Markworthen, you have twice now changed the article's rating from a "B" to a "C". You are of course absolutely entitled to your opinion that the article deserves a "C". What you are not entitled to do is to ignore the views of other editors and change the rating, in the face of opposition, and without agreement or any effort at discussing the matter. Sadads was the user who originally gave the article a "B", not me. He commented above, "compared to other book and non-fiction articles its a B class article: it thoroughly explores the literature, provides adequate summary and expected subjects for such an article, and does so with readable text and Wikipedia-adequete style and formatting." That seems fair. You have given no detailed justification for your view, and I see no reason why it must take precedence over that of Sadads. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 18:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality meets this WikiProject's (Books/Psychology/LGBT Studies) C-class criteria, but not B-class. Two other editors disagree. I am therefore posting this question at the three WikiProjects with interest in the article ... Please weigh in at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality#Article rating. (wikilinks omitted; edited slightly to make sense here)
Critics faulted Nicolosi's scholarship, and argued that he provided an inadequate discussion of biological influences on sexual orientation and incorrectly viewed homosexuality as pathological; some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific.was meant to sum up part of the "Reception" section. "Critics" in this context means "people who have offered evaluations of the book", not "people who have expressed negative views of reparative therapy". (I was going to suggest replacing "critics" with "reviewers", but several of the evaluations are not strictly speaking book reviews.)
Critics echo the broader scientific consensus that discredits conversion therapy as pseudoscientific and conflicting with general guidelines for psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals which oppose reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation.is a less accurate summary of the book's reception: the reviewers didn't all make reference to the broader scientific consensus or the guidelines for mental health professionals. Cheers, gnu 57 13:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Darn. I had hoped we were close to resolving our disagreements via compromise edits. Alas, that has not happened. I'm thinking that Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be the next best dispute resolution step. IMHO reparative therapy is a notable fringe theory, thus articles about reparative therapy satisfy the notability requirement. It is not notability that concerns me; it is the undue weight given to this fringe theory, using "but it's an article about a book, not an article about conversion therapy" as a cover for portraying reparative therapy as a scientific approach accepted by a significant minority of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals. And I could be wrong. ¶ If another editor starts an RfC, I will hold off on WP:FT/N. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
.... here is the entire RfC discussion...
To what extent should this article discuss the scientific consensus on reparative/conversion therapy's potential harms and benefits?
Participants on both sides of this debate believe the other side's preferences would constitute undue weight. [a]
One side believes that devoting substantial discussion of the aforementioned scientific consensus to an article about a book constitutes undue weight.
The other side believes that failure to adequately discuss the medical and psychological consensus constitutes an dereliction of duty (so to speak) to ensure that readers understand that "reparative therapy" is a fringe theory that harms patients.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This contrasts with the American Psychiatric Association's position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and its opposition to reparative therapy and similar treatments.This sentence is very similar to one in the second paragraph, so we basically just need to move a sentence up a paragraph. As for the body of the article, I do not see any need for a change as the scientific consensus is already covered. It seems to me currently that all perspectives on the book are covered extensively in the body, while not violating WP:DUE. — Bilorv ( talk) 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality influenced the practice of conversion therapy. The legal scholar Marie-Amélie George called the book [in 2017] "a standard text for reparative therapists", noting that it re-popularized ideas that had begun to be discarded following the declassification of homosexuality.I'm not seeing any evidence that there was any scientific basis for reparative therapy, ever; rather, I see that the APA reaffirmed its opposition to it in response to the book (albeit 9 years later). Whether public views are based on understandable gay panic or repugnant gay panic, if the book's author never attempted to participate meaningfully in the scientific process in development of theories and treatments described in this book then it's WP:FRINGE. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We should note that it is pseudoscience. I agree that the best way to deal with the fact that these claims are pseudoscientific is to address it in a background section. That said, the section could be a bit less preachy, and instead put it in historical context (ie when the book was written, what the prevailing scientific & societal views were then, when that changed etc). This can also be done in the Reception section, which might be broken down into how it influenced the "field" of conversion therapy, critiques of it etc. That section is far too wordy and needs to be broken up in to sub-sections or separate sections. I also agree that the photo of Sigmund Freud shouldn't be included. This article is not about him, and the book is not one of his works. His photo is distracting and arguably misleading. It is good that the lead notes that conversion therapy "is banned in numerous jurisdictions". I think the article is rightly going to leave readers with the impression that this is a fringe book, and of course our job is to explain what it is, what it is about and put it in context. It is a difficult task to do that without lending credence to pseudoscience or going too far the other way and turning the article into an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Our article on Mein Kampf might be a helpful place to look to see how to attempt such balance when discussing a very controversial book, although I am not sure we have reached the correct balance there. It seems a bit banal to me.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Although we have not resolved the stalemate, we have received many very helpful observations, suggestions, and points of order (for lack of a better term). IMHO the article is of higher quality now than when this RfC began. Obviously we need to keep working to forge a compromise, but I am optimistic we will get there. ¶ On a more personal level, something that has helped me a lot recently has been to pledge (mainly to myself) to follow good Old-fashioned Wikipedian Values. It's not easy! I am definitely still a work in progress, but for one thing I feel less stress when edit disagreements emerge. I also hope I am getting better at "seek first to understand; then seek to be understood" (my slightly different phrasing of the Covey principle). I discovered the Old-fashioned Wikipedian Values group while working through some intense frustration, which I described in a brief personal essay called Feeling misunderstood and attacked. I don't know if any of that is helpful to you (anyone reading this) but I offer it because I've seen too many really good editors leave, which is a loss to Wikipedia's millions of readers (learners). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Notes
Change:
To:
References
There is a growing body of evidence that conversion therapy not only does not work, but also can be extremely harmful, resulting in depression, social isolation from family and friends, low self-esteem, internalized homophobia, and even attempted suicide.
Conversion therapy can be harmful.
In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation. ... The validity, efficacy and ethics of clinical attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation have been challenged. To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments. (references omitted)
The additional text and sources are from the lead of Conversion therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views){ and represent a consensus high level neutral summary of the scientific status of Nicolosi's ideas; this reflects the clear and unnambiguous consensus above that this status should be included.
Can this be improved? Sure, all text can. Is the article better without the scientific status? Consensus above is very clear: no, it is worse, to the point of failing NPOV.
Freeknowledgecreator has tried several arguments for this inclusion, starting with "GA needs MOAR PHOTO". That's frankly bizarre. He's prepared to edit war on any article where it's rmeoived so I'd be interested to hear what the great point of principle is that requires this gratuitous image of Freud to be included, when the text alone seems to me to be quite sufficient.
Per WP:PRIMARY, "X partisan conservative/liberal source criticised Y thin that partisan conservatives/liberals hate, source, X highly partisan conservative/liberal source" is always a bad idea. We already know that the right hates gays, we don't need right-wing sources saying that Amazon's commercial decision not to sell a book beloved of the anti-LGBT movement is evil suppression. We know that's what they think. The fact of Amazon removing iut form sale is notable. The howls of incoherent rage formt he right are not, unless we have a reliable secondary source that describes it and establishes its significance. It's information not knowledge. The more contentious the topic, the less we shjould include crappy sources like the Washington Examiner, Vice, the Daily Signal and the like. Guy ( help!) 14:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I added a bit to the Background section ( diff) with this edit note: "I added what I started to write for the "Background" (two sentences with citations). It seems to fit nicely at the beginning of what has already been added." I also copy edited one sentence in the lede ( diff): "copy edit for clarity and NPOV". Those are all the edits I plan to make until we either reach consensus or go to the next stage of dispute resolution. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I (again) removed an erroneous statement from the Freud photograph caption ( diff). That statement is: "Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." Here's an example of what Freud actually said:
Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too. [1]
Can we agree to leave out this invalid statement? (See also Homosexuality and psychology#Freud and psychoanalysis). If you (anyone) believes it should stay, please present reliable evidence that Freud "viewed homosexuality as pathological". ¶ On a related point, I said previously that I didn't have a strong opinion about whether or not to include the Freud photograph. One of the arguments against including the photo is that it lends credence to Nicolosi's hypothesis. The statement (that had been) added to the caption also communicates to the uninformed reader that Nicolosi's hypothesis—that homosexuality is pathological—is credible because Sigmund Freud (allegedly) thought the same. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Markworthen, I am sure you are acting in good faith, but the statement you removed ("Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological") is not "erroneous". It is clearly, demonstrably, and unambiguously true. Please consider that it is not a statement about Freud's views, but about what Nicolosi says Freud's views were. Nicolosi does indeed write that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological. You may argue that what Nicolosi writes is mistaken, if you want, but it is nonetheless true that this is what he writes. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You write that the image suggests that "Nicolosi's hypothesis—that homosexuality is pathological—is credible because Sigmund Freud (allegedly) thought the same". For the record, Nicolosi does not use the term "pathological" to describe homosexuality. Nor does a simple statement about what Nicolosi states in his book in any sense suggest that what he states is correct. You are reading something into an image caption that it does not suggest and was never meant to suggest. Although I can see that several editors support JzG's view that the image endorses "Nicolosi's fallacious - and, it turns out bogus - appeal to authority", I find that view to be unsupported. No, including an image of Freud in the article does not lend any support to Nicolosi's views. The image is just an image, not a statement that Nicolosi's views are correct. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I also have to note that it is quite mistaken to believe that you can resolve the question of what Freud thought about homosexuality by a single quotation from him. Freud wrote a lot about homosexuality, he made many different claims at different times, and the various claims are not necessarily all consistent with each other. One single quotation - a quotation not from Freud's psychoanalytic writings but simply from a letter to a mother who was freaked out because her son was gay - definitely does not settle the issue of what Freud's views were. Obviously Freud's purpose in that letter was to try to soothe a distressed woman and calm her down. It is specious to look at a personal letter written for that purpose as a definitive statement of his views on homosexuality. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
I think we can reach a compromise on the Reception section. I suggest the following.
In a very good faith effort to organize references, an editor sought to consolidate citations into reference groups ( diff). Unfortunately, many of the references listed under "medical associations" and "organizations" were not actually medical associations and organizations. I set about to organize the references accurately, to update citations, eliminate old or less relevant citations (I did not eliminate any references that favor or support reparative therapy), include relevant organizations and eliminate less relevant groups (I did not eliminate any references that favor or support reparative therapy). This diff contains all the edits I made this afternoon in that regard. I ended up with some stray references, so to speak. I cannot discern where they belong, so I will list them here. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{harvnb|Ford|2001}}
{{cite journal|last1=Cruz|first1=David B.|title=Controlling Desires: Sexual Orientation Conversion and the Limits of Knowledge and Law|journal=Southern California Law Review|date=1999|volume=72|page=1297|url=http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf|accessdate=25 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919071205/http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072502.pdf|archive-date=19 September 2017|url-status=dead}}
{{citation |last=Yoshino |first=Kenji |title=Covering |year=2002 |journal=Yale Law Journal |volume=111 |issue=4 |pages=769–939 |url=http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/covering|doi=10.2307/797566 |jstor=797566 }}
{{Harvnb|Haldeman|1991|p=149}}
{{cite journal|url = http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf|title = The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy|volume = 4|issue = 1|journal = Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies|date = December 1999|accessdate = March 16, 2018|last = Haldeman|first = Douglas C.|pages = 1–4 |quote=Conversion therapy can be harmful.}}
{{harvnb|Glassgold|2009|p=91}}: "As noted previously, early research indicates that aversive techniques have been found to have very limited benefits as well as potentially harmful effects."
{{harvnb|Glassgold|2009}}
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI, Freeknowledgecreator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Skoojal. Guy ( help!) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit: diff. I disagree with a number of the changes, including removing all of the book reviews. gnu 57 12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Conversion therapy,a therapeutic approach that departs from traditional psychoanalytic techniques.... This is a highly misleading presentation of the history of conversion therapy.
Usable for attributed opinions means not usable for facts.: Again, see the entry for TAC on RSP. There is no consensus as to general reliability; there is consensus that it can be used for attributed opinion (as it is being used here). ¶ First Things is an influential and generally well-regarded American print periodical. "The Public Square"/"While We're At It" is a long-running feature in which the editor comments on noteworthy recent writing, political developments and other issues. (FT resulted from the merger of two other publications, one of which was a newsletter. Neuhaus' Public Square columns were very popular and are collected in several volumes.) Generally speaking, editorial content in a reliable published source is not self-published: it receives oversight from professional editing staff other than the author. I don't think that Reno's having been cancel-cultured last week for dumb remarks on Twitter has any bearing on the quality of his past professional work on a different subject. Whether or not you agree with Reno's views is irrelevant to the question of whether his discussion of Dreher's comments indicates that Dreher's comments are significant. Cheers, gnu 57 18:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)