Talk:Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent edits

DavidCPruden made several changes to the article, which I have reverted here. Of these changes, some at least, such as listing qualifications such as PhDs, seem unhelpful. Others, including the removal of "is an organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction" and the addition of "While addressing the concept of therapy for unwanted homosexuality the organization offers no direct clinical services" may make the article more accurate; however, the added information needs to be properly cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted similar material yesterday. The original wording is more neutral, and properly sourced. "addressing the concept of therapy for unwanted homosexuality" seems to be a euphemistic way of saying "promoting conversion therapy".- MrX 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The edits were restored by an IP editor here. I am prepared to believe that at least some of the changes that were restored might be improvements, but the IP needs to make its case on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-science

I have no problem with the article stating that professional organizations in the United States consider conversion therapy pseudo-science; I agree that this would be a good addition. However, I stand by the original reason I gave for removing the statement that NARTH advocates "pseudo-scientific conversion therapy": it implies that there is some other kind that is not pseudo-scientific. A simple and clear statement like, "Conversion therapy is considered pseudo-scientific by organization [whatever]", would be an appropriate wording. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. There may also be a need for reference pruning, by the way. --Nemo 20:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading comment

Regarding the first footnote in the article:

As far as I can tell, NARTH is not aligned specifically with any Christian church or group. Some counter-LGBT group might link to NARTH or mention it is a resource, but . . . so, what? The comment unduly prejudices the reader. Mwidunn (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)mwidunn

I too find it strange to mention the Christian relationship, given that it appears to be one-sided. Approaching (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording

The lead until recently stated that NARTH, "promotes conversion therapy and other regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction". I do not believe that wording makes sense. Regimens that "purport to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction" are surely the same thing as conversion therapy, not a type of conversion therapy, and it is not helpful to suggest that NARTH promotes other "regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction" without stating what they are. It is also unclear to me how the citations provided in the article support those claims, or the additions made here and here. Specifically, what is the reliable source stating the regimens promoted by NARTH are "abusive", and what is the source stating that NARTH "most notably" promotes conversion therapy among those regimens? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, I ask again what reliable sources specifically state that NARTH promotes "abusive" methods of changing the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction". If there are such sources, then the charge that NARTH promotes "abusive" methods is important information and should be in the article. If there are not, the article should not claim that NARTH promotes abusive methods, in accord with basic Wikipedia policies against making things up. Of course I understand the view that conversion therapy is inherently abusive, but per WP:NPOV, articles cannot be based on personal opinion - not even the Conversion therapy article states that conversion therapy is inherently abusive so it would be strange for the NARTH article to make that claim. I further note that the article already stated that conversion therapy is considered pseudoscience and that the effect of that edit was to make the lead state twice over that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, which is unnecessary. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a brief and concise summary. It should not repeat information. Finally, I repeat the question about what reliable source states that conversion therapy is most notable among the regimens promoted by NARTH. If there is no such source, the claim is original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I did an internet search for sources accusing NARTH of using "abusive" methods, and found for example this, this, and this. I believe it would be reasonable for the article to state that NARTH has been accused of employing abusive methods based on these sources - but again, per WP:NOR, we cannot simply make things up, and it has to be noted that none of these sources is an article in a peer-reviewed journal, and that as such none carries the same weight that peer-reviewed literature would. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Article name

Hello, Bluerasberry. In December 2014, you moved the article to the title "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity". I opposed that change at the time. However, I have now reconsidered the issue. I recently tried to access NARTH's website and found that it redirected to the website of the "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity". So far as I can tell, it appears that the "NARTH" name has been retired and that "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" is the name they are currently using. At this point, I think changing the articles name to "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" would not be unreasonable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, this is an organization of largely historical importance, and any notability it may have stems mainly from its actions as NARTH. It probably belongs here, at the name by which it was, and I suspect still is, best known. A redirect at "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" will be sufficient to catch the few people who might know it by that name. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what your evidence is that the organization is "of largely historical importance". There is no source that actually states that, to my knowledge, and of course the organization still exists and is still active. The bottom line is surely that if an organization we have an article about changes its name, we eventually have to update its article to reflect that. Otherwise, using the old name simply becomes a form of misinformation. Encyclopedias do need to be accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We have to update the article to state the current name, sure, but that doesn't mean that we have to reflect the title. The title should reflect the name that people are most likely to use when discussing it, and if they're most likely to be discussing what they did under a prior name, then that prior name should be a title. If the remnants of The John Birch Society were to change their name to the Okeefenokee Glee And Perloo Society, we would still keep the article at the old title because people would be more likely looking into what they did when they were powerful than what they're doing today. Or to use an actual human example: we have an article at Shirley Temple despite the fact that she had taken on the last name Black in 1950, and even though she did significant things under that new name, because people are more likely to be discussing her using her name from her acting years. Whether that applies to NARTH/neoNARTH is a separate question. They are the champions of a cause that is looking ever more lost; whether people are more likely to be talking about the things they did or about the things they are now doing is something that would need some evaluation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The analogy with the John Birch Society does not work, since NARTH has never been "powerful" per se. They have been an organization promoting an unpopular set of beliefs and have little influence. The Shirley Temple comparison does not work either, as she is famous and a household name, whereas NARTH isn't. They are a comparatively little known organization, which reduces the strength of the argument that, "The title should reflect the name that people are most likely to use when discussing" them. Under these circumstances, it simply seems strange that Wikipedia would insist on calling an organization something it no longer calls itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Google hits:
*  15,600 "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality"
* 531,000 "NARTH"
*   2,910 "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity"
- Nunh-huh 06:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I have great respect for those who are willing to change their opinion or vote, based on further evidence, or what others bring to bear in an argument, as you have here. I admit to wavering on this one myself, going back and forth and considering that there are valid arguments on both sides. One of the reasons I didn't post earlier, is that I was split fairly down the middle, and wasn't sure what I could contribute. From your arguments, I was leaning towards supporting the change, until I found a supplement to the WP:Article titles policy page. At the risk of possibly causing you to shift again, please have a look at WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and see what you think. Based on this, I now believe that Nat has it right, and I'm now opposed to moving the article to the "Alliance" title. By the way, in certain circles, NARTH is no so little-known as all that, although I don't think we'll see Nicolosi doing the "stair dance" with Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, anytime soon. Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mathglot. It is not so much a matter of further evidence as of a changed situation. It was reported some time ago that NARTH had renamed themselves, but for some time after those reports a NARTH website still existed. This is no longer the case; the NARTH website is gone altogether. There is now only an "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" website, which doesn't seem to even mention the name "NARTH" (maybe there is a mention of NARTH buried away somewhere in the website, but there is no reference to NARTH on the website's front page). I originally opposed renaming the article because the name NARTH was still being used; at this stage, when the NARTH label has been dropped completely, there is a strong case to be made for a rename. Perhaps it should not happen immediately, but Wikipedia will eventually have to acknowledge fully what this organization currently calls itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator, I see what you're saying, and it seems persuasive. Do you feel they're trying to whitewash their previous history with this name change? How should we handle this, in your opinion? Mathglot (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really an issue of what they call themselves, or if they're trying to evade their own history without actually disavowing it; that can be handled by a redirect and coverage within the article. What ought to be determinative of what Wikipedia's title is, is what people in general would refer to them as. This is a dying, obsolescent group, interesting more as a historical entity than as an active organization, and it's unlikely they will ever achieve the same notoriety under the name "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" as they did under "NARTH". - Nunh-huh 11:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What the organization actually calls itself definitely is a relevant factor. We have an article titled The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not an article titled "Mormon Church", even though very possibly more people would use the colloquial name "Mormon Church" to refer to the organization than its actual official title. It would be a good idea to take a close look at what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines actually state about such issues. I appreciate your point that there is a case for keeping the article at its present name; I just don't think that this case is necessarily definitive, or that it would be wrong to eventually change the article's name. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that support for almost any position can be found in various parts of Wikipedia's policies if one picks and chooses carefully. Yes, what an organization calls itself is a factor (I never said otherwise, so it turns out I don't really need that closer look at policy that you so helpfully suggest), but it's also quite clear that what an entity calls itself is not completely dispositive. Nor have I said that if circumstances change, a name change would be out of the question; I've only said that so far circumstances haven't changed, and the "old" name of the organization is much, much, much better known than the newer, obscurer name. - Nunh-huh 12:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no rush. Perhaps a request for comment could be held on the issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, have to disagree with you on one point, that what an org calls themselves somehow trumps common usage. It may be relevant to consider, but it isn't, or at least shouldn't be, decisive. See State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not the case - I don't think it is necessarily decisive in all cases, just that a name change would not be unreasonable on that basis in this particular case. Hence the suggestion for a request for comment on the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Anybody who has not read Nineteen Eighty-Four will fail to understand the reason these wingnut pressure groups choose names with words like "integrity" and "freedom". Guy (Help!) 12:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Harmful" in lead

Someone recently removed the term "harmful" from the lead, in describing attempted conversion therapy. I don't think we need to pussyfoot around accurate terms. The overwhelming consensus of medical opinion is that the therapy is useless and may be harmful. The lead doesn't have to be footnoted if it's summarizing material in the body that is sourced to reliable sources, and I believe that's what it was doing when the word "harmful" was in the lead. If that's not the case, then we need to add some more references to the body of the article that substantiate that, and then "harmful" can be restored to the lead. We could also add them directly to the lead. Footnote [2] goes to a source which says

Some—but not all—conversion therapy clients are harmed. In particular, those who have undergone treatments such as electric shock or drugs inducing vomiting while homoerotic material is presented are likely to have been harmed the most. Many such individuals seen in my practice are not only tormented by an exacerbated level of shame but are physically rendered “asexual”—not changed into heterosexuals, but no longer functioning as homosexuals either.

That sounds like harm, to me. I think the word should be restored to the lead in some form. Also, it's not necessary to go into detail about "how" the therapy is harmful in the lead, as long as that's covered in the body sufficiently (which perhaps needs to be beefed up). Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Telling children to run with scissors is also harmful, even though not all children who run with scissors are harmed. Poisons and other noxious agents are still classed as harmful even though they don't kill everyone exposed to them. So I think that objection can be disregarded.

The lede is a summary, and should summarize the contents of the article, where the details reside. So I concur that the details of the harm of conversion therapy should be added to the article in the appropriate place, and that the summation ("harmful") belongs in the lede. - Nunh-huh 20:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Harmful" is vague and useless. We shouldn't put vague and useless statements in the lead or anywhere else. If we spell out specifically what unfortunate effects conversion therapy is supposed to have (which I agree would be helpful), it is needless to spell out explicitly that it is "harmful" as though our readers were idiots. They probably aren't going to say things like, "Oh, you mean being tormented by an exacerbated level of shame is harmful? Wow what a surprise" to themselves. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Summaries are by their very nature vague. But hardly useless. Their presence in the lede alerts the reader to continue to the specifics. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No, summaries are not by their very nature vague - what nonsense. A summary can be clear and specific, and it should be, to be helpful to readers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Except, of course, if it's not less detailed than that which it summarizes, it's not a summary. - Nunh-huh 23:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is not even remotely controversial in the professional community, and barely controversial outside fundamentalist old-testament Christian (i.e. Pharisee) circles:

Efforts to change sexual orientation are deeply harmful and should be banned, Psychology Today

The cruel, dangerous reality of gay conversion therapy, Wired

The Lies and Dangers of Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, Human Rights Campaign

Why Gay Conversion Therapy Is Harmful, LiveScience

The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy, J Consult Clin Psychol

It's well supported by sources, and I cannot find a single relevant reliable sources that shows any benefit at all. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Current opening

The current lede includes the phrase "pseudoscientific practice used in attempts to change or reduce the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction," which doesn't quite manage to say what is meant. It's not about "reducing sexual orientation," it's about reducing same-sex attraction. Sexual orientation is a direction, not a quantity. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Johnmichaeljfc has modified the lead so that it states that, "The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), also known as the NARTH Institute, is a US organization founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and Charles Socarides promoting research into homosexuality and the potential for therapy as a means to help people resolve unwanted homosexuality." I accept that Johnmichaeljfc is acting in good faith, but that wording needs to be removed. It is too close to being promotional. NARTH obviously is not primarily concerned with "research into homosexuality", and such language is disingenuous, as it implies that whatever "research" they do is somehow neutral or disinterested. They are concerned with promoting a particular view of the subject, not with disinterested "research". The "the potential for therapy as a means to help people resolve unwanted homosexuality" wording is also unacceptable, being both poor writing, and weasel language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have rolled back to a version prior to Johnmichaeljfc's edits. They are indicative of sympathy for NARTH, not a neutral assessment of its work as established by independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there are real problems with some of the material Johnmichaeljfc removed, which was why I did not revert all of his changes. For example, it is overkill for the lead to state that conversion therapy is both "harmful" and "pseudoscientific"; if something is "pseudoscientific" it should be self-evident that it is "harmful". It's unfortunate that Johnmichaeljfc would choose to replace such material with unacceptable material that puts a too-positive spin on NARTH. It might be desirable to have a compromise version that would leave out some of the material Johnmichaeljfc removed without including any NARTH-promoting language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Creationism is pseudoscience, but any harm it causes is tangential to that. Conversion therapy is both pseudoscience and directly harmful. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Rekers

I'm not sure about the exact content reverted this morning, but it's pretty clear form the sources that Rekers was a key player in NARTH and FRC and that he hired a rent boy as a sexual companion.

• Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"
• Baptist minister George Rekers denies rent boy claim
• How George Alan Rekers and his rent boy got busted by New Times
• Reporters find tragic story amid embarrassing scandal
• A Heaven-Sent Rent Boy

Rekers' methods were bizarre and harmful (see Therapy to change 'feminine' boy created a troubled man, family says for example). This is a pretty significant story and prominently linked in the sources to NARTH, as well as being part of the narrative that anti-gay bigots are often closeted. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The only reason why I removed that content is that on careful inspection it appeared to have sourcing and formatting problems. If you look at the "References" section of this version of the article, you will note that it displays the messages, "Cite error: The named reference ACLU was invoked but never defined (see the help page)", "Cite error: The named reference RekersRentBoy was invoked but never defined (see the help page)", " Cite error: The named reference CNN7may2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)", and " Cite error: The named reference NARTHcomment was invoked but never defined (see the help page)". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll clean it up in a bit. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: did you ever put the Rekers bit in again? There's no mention in the article. --Sxologist (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, don't think so. Guy (help!) 15:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Controversy over the origin of "Reparative therapy"

According to Warren Throckmorton there was a feud between Elizabeth Moberly and Joseph Nicolosi over who came up with the concept of "reparative therapy." Moberly accused Nicolosi of stealing her ideas.

Who Invented the Therapy in Those Joseph Nicolosi Books Banned by Amazon?

I know blogs aren't usually reliable sources but Throckmorton cites letters and articles written for the magazine California Psychologist. Is this worth mentioning in the article or should it be considered WP:GOSSIP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustytumble (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder. Warren Throckmorton is a reputable academic, was formerly involved with the reparative therapy movement and does regular interviews with mainstream academics on his blog. If this is an okay source, you'd still need to attribute the discussion to Throckmorton though. I will ping @Flyer22 Frozen: and see what she says. Don't get your hopes up though. However, the opening of the Conversion therapy article has the following sentence: "The term reparative therapy has been used as a synonym for conversion therapy in general, but it has been argued that strictly speaking it refers to a specific kind of therapy associated with the psychologists Elizabeth Moberly and Joseph Nicolosi", and refers to a text, so you might be able to find something through that citation. Sxologist (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Throckmorton's blog, fine as it is, cannot be used as a source itself for statements about Moberly, as she remains alive and thus WP:BLPSPS applies. That doesn't mean, however, that one cannot check the sources he uses and reference material from them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, @Dustytumble: just go to the original source or try the one linked on the conversion therapy article. Sxologist (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Other than this post to note that I've seen the matter, I don't see the need to add anything to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)