Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

Undue weight and quote mining alert
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)
 * All I have done is to write an article that reflects what the sources available to me state about the book. You ask, of the review by Payne, why "his positive review given the introduction as though his opinion means anything". For your information, it happens to be my standard practice, when summarizing the responses a book receives, to mention positive reviews first. This has nothing to do with whether I like the book or not; it simply reflects the fact that I have to find some way of properly organizing and presenting the material, and in most cases, this seems to me like the best approach. Unless you can provide some reason to think otherwise, Payne's review means as much or as little as any other review. There is no reason it should not be mentioned that I can see. Whether Payne is "particularly notable" or not is irrelevant, and it is hardly reasonable to demand evidence that he is an expert on conversion therapy when you have not demanded such evidence for any of the other reviewers; in fact it is a clear double standard. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You commented, "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." What a blatantly rude comment. It is offensive and a tremendous insult. You are implying that I have somehow suppressed or ignored negative views and criticism of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. No. I have not. Far from it. I have mentioned absolutely all criticism of the book that I could find in reliable sources and that was pertinent in any way. If there is some criticism the book has received in reliable sources that I have not mentioned in the article, then that simply reflects my lack of awareness of those sources, not some supposed desire on my part to suppress criticism of the book. By all means present those sources, and the criticism can then be added to the article - and try being polite and exercising good faith in future. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay well clearly my comments offended you for which I apologise. I will use more careful language in future. The relevance of peoples reviews actually does matter. If I was to go onto any wiki of a highly controversial book or movie, and include some positive review from a relatively obscure person, it would likely be removed immediately. Further, is the Nicolosi Jr quote mine about him "saving somebodies marriage" is actually appropriate? --Sxologist (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You say "relevance", but I am having to conclude that "relevance" means, "Do I, Sxologist, agree with the review or not?" The quote from Nicolosi Jr is purely an expression of opinion from Nicolosi Jr, and it is represented only as an expression of his opinion. It is as legitimate to mention it as it is to mention anyone else's opinion. Again, it looks like the real issue is, "Do I, Sxologist, agree with the opinion or not?" That's not the standard we use here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with agreeing or not. It's the simple fact that you've linked to the Nicolosi article, and he has claimed: "In one comment, which Amazon has now banned, a man said the book “Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality” saved his marriage.". Well how convenient that it has now been deleted. Are amazon reviews credible? It would have been more useful if he had actually shown us a man who had his marriage saved. I have watched Jr's videos before, and he always seems to gain batches of "positive reviews" in the comments of his reintegrative therapy videos, which all sound almost identical, yet is unable to show us any of his successes. Does the mention of a review on amazon constitute mention in the wiki article? --Sxologist (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How tedious. It seems I am going to have to repeat myself: the statement about Nicolosi Jr's opinion is presented only as a statement about his opinion. It is not presented as though it were objective fact. You are apparently arguing that it should be removed because you do not agree with Nicolosi Jr's opinion or find it credible. So I now have to explain once again that that isn't the standard we use here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SAID we should remember that "noted" is not a neutral term; might this problem be solved simply be replacing "noted" with "said"? — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. No objection to the change. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:53, 21 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)

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH
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:


 * Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about conversion therapy by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi, who draws on work by previous authors, maintains that the form of conversion therapy he promotes, "reparative therapy", does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son. 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. The book was first published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991.


 * Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about a form of conversion therapy known as "reparative therapy", by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. The American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and other treatments which aim to change a patient's sexual orientation, due to its position that that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Nicolosi, who draws on work by previous authors, maintains that reparative therapy does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son. The book was first published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991.

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)


 * No opposition, although note that it's not just the American Psychiatric Association. Every major medical, psychological, public health, social work, nursing, and counseling professional association in the United States, Canada, western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand either expresses concern about, cautions against, or opposes conversion therapy, and many jurisdictions outlaw the practice with youth. In general, this hagiographic book review article needs a lot of work to rise above C-class.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  21:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have made a series of good faith but unhelpful changes. For example, you added a paragraph to the "Overview" section of "Reception" stating,


 * "Research has not demonstrated that conversion therapy achieves its stated goals, i.e., it is not effective. None of the major medical, psychological, social work, or counseling associations in the United States, Canada, western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand support, encourage, endorse, or recommend Nicolosi's reparative therapy or conversion therapy generally, and many jurisdictions outlaw conversion therapy with youth."


 * There is a simple problem here that you are not noticing or perhaps do not care about. None of that information is actually about Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, the topic of the article. It is information about conversion therapy in general. How is criticism of conversion therapy in general part of the "Reception" of a specific book by Nicolosi? Quite simply it is not. It is flatly inaccurate to suggest that it is. One specific book is not the same thing as the entire field of conversion therapy. Criticism of conversion therapy in general is not part of the reception of the book and it does not belong in the reception section. If the information were to go anywhere in the article, it would have to be placed in a section titled something like, "Criticism of conversion therapy", because that is what the information actually is. It clearly is not information specifically about the reception of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, because none of it comments on that particular book.


 * The information you have added is obviously excessive, in addition to being inappropriate to the section to which it was added. Why, for example, does it matter to an article about one book by Joseph Nicolosi, an American author, what professional associations specifically in Australia and New Zealand think about conversion therapy? How did that become a crucial point for an article about a book by an American author, when Australian and New Zealand professional organizations have no authority in the US? Why should each specific country pr region where professional associations have criticized conversion therapy be mentioned separately? What possible point is there to that level of detail?


 * Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you commented in an edit summary, "No way this hagiographic book review is B-class". Your comment is a blatant insult, and an accusation of biased editing on my part, which I utterly reject. It implies that I have deliberately tried to write a flattering article about Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. No, I have not. I have written an article that reflects what the available sources state about the book, and that is all. The available sources are primarily negative or critical, and as a result the article is likewise. The lead section of the article as written by me notes the negative response to it. Stating that I wrote something "hagiographic" is simply a falsehood. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As for your view that the article should not be rated a B, I will note that the B-rating was originally added by, not by me, because I don't rate my own work that way. Sadads, do you have any comment? Besides anything else, Mark D Worthen, it is peculiar that you would make edits that you presumably believe raise the quality of the article and at the same time lower its rating. If you believe that your edits are improvements, why simultaneously lower the rating from a B? How would the article have to read, in your view, to be worth a B? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, just commenting here on the specific questions here -- 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. As for the actual content, I know nothing about the book or the subject and can't speak to how well it covers the topic in that sense -- that would be something better left to careful readers, like GA reviewers.
 * Reading the recent revisions, I do not think this is the right location to discuss conversion therapy as a general topic -- that should be treated in Conversion_therapy. It would be appropriate to describe that practice as discredited by science per Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. But we shouldn't be spending more than a small aside doing this in the lead section (I wouldn't add full sentences or paragraphs). Sadads (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So far that's two users supporting a B-rating with only one disagreeing. I suggest to Mark D Worthen that he should wait for a consensus to form about this issue on the talk page. As for the lead, it is just common sense to gradually work out some kind of compromise. I am perfectly willing to accept changes to it that would more clearly convey the medical consensus against conversion therapy without adding excessive, misplaced, or overly-detailed information. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:37, 22 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? 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)
 * The lead can certainly mention that conversion therapy is considered pseudoscientific without the wall of text added to the lead by Markworthen, which comes complete with an observation about the views of professional organizations in New Zealand. If that particular detail was added specifically to be helpful to New Zealanders, I suppose I should mention that I am a New Zealander, and I don't find it helpful in the least. I find it pointless and distracting. One can easily state that conversion therapy is considered pseudoscientific without a comprehensive (or even partial) list of countries where professional organizations have criticized it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed the lead should mention something of mainstream science in its first paragraph, in addition to the content in the second; this is the point of my original suggestions. I'm all in favour of alternate suggestions—I suggested a simple summary of the APA's views, but if we have sourcing to say that it is considered pseudoscience by all mainstream scientific bodies then let's see it. All suggestions should bear two requirements in mind: that of MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH/WP:FRINGE, which I believe requires that we mention something of the scientific consensus in the first paragraph; and that of the "nutshell" at MOS:LEAD, which most editors take to mean that a fact should not be mentioned in the lead unless it is also mentioned in the body. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not yet persuaded that whether information is included in the first or the second paragraph makes any difference. One should keep in mind that the lead is extremely short. Why does it make a crucial difference where a given fact is mentioned within such a very short space? MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH is simply about defining the subject. What the subject is - a book published in 1991 - was never in question. Does WP:FRINGE suggest anything regarding which paragraph a given fact goes in? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Article rating
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 the article satisfies numbers 3–6 of B-class criteria (the criteria are the same or very similar for the concerned WikiProjects), but I do not believe the article meets criterion #1 ("The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.") or criterion #2 ("The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.") I do not take issue with the citation and referencing format—I actually like it.
 * I posted a question about the article's quality grade on the three interested WikiProject's Talk pages: "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)"
 * I will not make any further changes to the quality ratings. If the consensus is that the article is C-class, I will let another editor make that change. Thank you  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for response. I took great care in properly citing every single statement that appears in the article. I simply do not know why you would say that the article does not meet criterion #1 ("The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited") or criterion #2 ("The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies"). If the problem with #1 is that citations are not present in the lead, then I have to point out WP:LEADCITE. As far as I'm concerned, the lead, as written by me (and as visible in this version of the article, for example) does properly summarize the main body of the article, so there is no special reason for adding citations to it. If changes have been made to the lead since then that might have added content that is not sufficiently well cited, that is not my doing. As for #2, what are the supposed omissions or inaccuracies in the article? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thinking about your response, you are right that #1 does not apply as you have made good citations, it's just #2 that I don't think passes muster yet. I'll be making some judicious edits to show what I believe are omissions. I actually prefer a good lede that does not have citations, so I don't have a problem with the lead (although it might need to be edited a bit to accommodate additions to the body of the article, but you understand that point, which is a separate consideration not in contention). I also understand that this is an article about a book, not about conversion therapy in general, which is why I use the adjective "judicious".  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you say that you consider it important that article content be properly cited, I have to note that I do not think your additions to the lead are properly cited. Thank you for your good faith edits to improve the lead. It is unfortunate that they are adding original research and editorial commentary ("Critics echo the broader scientific consensus that discredits conversion therapy as pseudoscientific and conflicting with general guidelines for psychiatrists and other therapist which oppose reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation"). The "critics echo" language is something you came up with. There is no source actually stating that individual critics of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality are echoing "broader scientific consensus". You may well think it a reasonable statement, but the bottom line is you should not add it without a source actually stating it; otherwise it is the opinion of one editor and nothing more. What you are doing, despite your intentions, is lowering the quality of the article, and to a significant extent. If this goes on, I will be forced to actually agree with you that the article does not deserve a "B". Please reconsider your approach and ensure that all content you add closely reflects what sources state. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Would you post the diff for "Critics echo the broader scientific consensus that discredits conversion therapy as pseudoscientific and conflicting with general guidelines for psychiatrists and other therapist which oppose reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation" - I cannot find when that sentence was in the lede. (I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just can't find it.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  04:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The part about "Critics echo ..." was actually added by Sadads (diff) and it is still part of the lede. (Sorry I missed that fact!)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Other material you have added has the same problems as previous material. You say you, "understand that this is an article about a book, not about conversion therapy in general". That is good in principle. Unfortunately, the information you are adding to the "Overview" section of "Reception", I assume to make good on what you believe to be the article's "omissions", is about "conversion therapy in general" and not about the specific book that is the article's actual topic. As I said, if you want this information in the article at all, it would have to go in a section titled something like, "Criticism of conversion therapy". It obviously does not belong in the "Reception" section, because it simply is not information about how people have responded to the book. It is confusing to readers to imply that it is. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what material you are referring to, but that's okay because maybe we no longer disagree. → Is the present Overview subsection okay with you?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  04:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the American Psychological Association quote from the Overview section and back down to the footnotes, to make the paragraph more concise, and to compromise.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  05:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This edit is a serious mistake. You have cited a particular statement, "Kashmira Gander wrote in Newsweek that Nicolosi's books involve approaches rejected by the medical community", not to the reference that actually supports it, the article by Gander, but to a totally different source, an article by the Human Rights Campaign, that does not support it and has nothing to do with it. The HRC article is a critique of conversion therapy that does not even mention Kashmira Gander and does not support any claim about what she wrote in Newsweek. Your well-intentioned edits are causing serious problems and it is my responsibility to point them out. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my reason for the cite, but that's okay. I made another set of edits (diff) in an effort to reach a compromise solution.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  04:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And some more edits to tighten up the prose (conciseness), and also trying to compromise (diff). I believe noting the overwhelming number of medical and mental health organizations who oppose Nicolosi's theory and its purported therapeutic value is important, but in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to put it down in the footnotes (specifically in the "Notes" section) with a link to that HRC site. If you know of a better list of such organizations, switch 'em out. :)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  05:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to, "You misunderstand my reason for the cite", I have to say that you do not seem to see the problem. Look at this edit. Without explanation, you have cited a sentence stating, "Kashmira Gander wrote in Newsweek that Nicolosi's books involve approaches rejected by the medical community, including the American Psychological Association", not to the reference that actually supports it (the article by Gander in Newsweek), but to a completely different reference, a statement by the American Psychological Association. The APA statement does not mention Kashimra Gander or support any claim about what she wrote in Newsweek. Whatever the reason for the edit, and whatever it was meant to accomplish, it was inaccurate. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the sentence 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)
 * Thank you, Genericusername57. I deliberately left several days before commenting further to give another user the chance to comment, and to hopefully give the situation time to calm down. The sentence stating, "Critics echo the broader scientific consensus that discredits conversion therapy as pseudoscientific", is original research in my view. I can see that Markworthen and Sadads would consider it perfectly reasonable. I can also what it is meant to accomplish: it is trying to make the lead note that conversion therapy is considered pseudoscientific using language stronger than, "some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific". I can see that this is an objective that many editors would support. However, if that is going to be done, then it would have to be done differently, using different language. The "Critics echo..." sentence goes beyond anything that any source actually states or could be summarized as saying.


 * Looking at Markworthen's recent edits, I think a few of them are helpful, and I have left them in place. The majority of his edits unfortunately are not helpful. Markworthen might want to consider placing a request for comment as a form of dispute resolution. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Next step
Darn. I had hoped we were close to resolving our disagreements via compromise edits. Alas, that has not happened. I'm thinking that 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)


 * After disengaging for a few days—which seems all concerned did, which is great—I decided to take the less "serious" step of an RfC, as Freeknowledgecreator suggested.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  05:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that the article gives "undue weight" to a "fringe theory". No, it does not. It is a neutrally written article. You suggest that I have deliberate tried to portray "reparative therapy as a scientific approach accepted by a significant minority of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals". No, I have not. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments (RfC) - Stalemate regarding undue weight
.... 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.

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)


 * I think WP:UNDUE basically demands we mention the scientific consensus in some form. Exactly how much, I'm not sure. Let's go find some comparable articles of people advocating fringe theories and see how much time they dedicate to pointing out the theory is fringe. Loki (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To... um... a significant extent. It seems that every person involved here agrees that there is scientific consensus that reparative therapy, as a type of conversion therapy, is recommended against by all major relevant medical organisations. This is a very good base to work from, and now the question is where to mention this. As I argue in discussions above, I believe MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH mandates that we mention the scientific consensus in the first paragraph of the lead, as we are not summarising the main aspects of this book without mentioning its relation to scientific knowledge. It would only take a sentence, like the one I suggested above: 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)
 * When a book is devoted to a fringe theory that the mainstream view considers pseudoscientific, we have a responsibility to make clear the background to the readers and to provide the proper context for a reader to understand the book and its reception. The article needs to begin with a Background section that lays out the scientific perception of the theory it discusses, and make clear the perceived issues surrounding it. Without that context, the article risks being a mere coatrack to hang a discredited theory on. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it easier to strike the right balance if you treat this subject a historical one instead of a scientific one. This book was written a long time ago.  If you don't remember that time yourself, then this is just a couple of years after AZT (the first anti-HIV drug) was approved.  The doses were wrong, the side effects were bad, and men were getting paged – remember pagers? – every six hours round the clock, because everyone was doing monotherapy with short-acting drugs, and being more than 15 minutes late with your pill could result in drug resistance.  ACT UP was just a few years old.  Magic Johnson still didn't know that he had HIV.  Ryan White had just died.  Bush Senior was in the White House, and there was a big political scandal, because not only did he sign the Ryan White CARE Act, but PFLAG leaked a letter from his wife, which said something vague about discrimination being bad for kids instead of saying something mean about gay people.  Gay men had been dying left, right, and center for almost 10 years.  In this context, conversion therapy was seen not just a way to solve a religious problem or avoid some social awkwardness, but as a desperate hope that you will be able to prevent your beloved son from dying of AIDS.  Parents of gay kids were scared half out of their minds.  Now, of course, most of the world has a very different view.  HIV isn't a death sentence.  Being gay isn't nearly as stigmatized in the developed world as it used to be.  Also, we know that conversion therapy doesn't work anyway.  But we shouldn't say "Here's a load of stupid", because that's not a complete or fair treatment of the book.  Instead, we should acknowledge that this idea was accepted in some circles back in the day, that it compares/contrasts with similar books from back in the day in these ways, and that, since then, everyone has decided that trying to make gay people straight doesn't conform to modern values, and also learned that it doesn't work, so it's a pointless endeavor as well as a harmful and hateful one.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article currently says: 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)
 * Yes, I remember the plague: men suffering horrible, painful illnesses and dying in droves while the U.S. government and others refused to respond with urgency and compassion, 'cause after all it was just killing the homos.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see merit in WhatamIdoing's suggestion to treat the book as historical topic, however I do not agree with "...instead of a scientific one." ¶ I concur with Bilorv's astute comment (above).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to martyr myself by reading this book. But I did download a pdf out of curiosity to see what kind of "science" was going on here. The metric I invented was to ctrl-F for words that would lead me to the "scientific" aspects. In 209 pages, the word "science" appears 3 times, "study" or "studies" 54 times, "evidence" 23 times, and "research" 29 times. I reviewed all of these hits. The majority of these are discussions of the supposed characteristics of gay men (particularly faulty gender expression and troubled relationships with parents). Others made non specific reference to the vast quantity of science on the subject or complained about new pro-gay work being done. There was also some discussion about the etiology of homosexual desires/behavior.  Only a single reference (page 25) seemed to mention any research in support of reparative therapy. Unfortunately the PDF I have doesn't include a bibliography. The citation is "Mayerson and Lief (1965)" which according to Google Scholar is probably "Psychotherapy of homosexuals: A follow-up study of nineteen cases" (mentioned on the conversion therapy page). I am confused about how a book advocating a treatment whose entire evidentiary basis appears to be a heavily criticized study of 19 people which was almost 30 years old when the book was originally published is being considered as scientific?  Additionally, the dedication is to "Father John Harvey founder of the homosexual ministry, Courage". Dedicating a scientific text to a religious leader/organization strikes me as... unorthodox. WhatsBest (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insightful and detailed analysis WhatsBest. The book is best characterized as "theoretical", or perhaps, "hypothetical" (as in "hypothesis") but certainly not scientific.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  10:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * RexxS suggested above that, "The article needs to begin with a Background section that lays out the scientific perception of the theory it discusses". That seems to me to be the best proposal so far. Part of the problem with Markworthen's edits is that he has insisted on adding information about professional views of conversion therapy to the "Reception" section, even when such information is not specifically about Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and as such not logically "reception" of the book at all. Putting information of that kind in a different section would be more acceptable and would remove the problem. I also thank WhatamIdoing and Bilorv for their comments, which are thought-provoking. I could respond with my own views, but I will not, being considerably more reticent than either of you. What my response might have been, had I been willing to give one, will have to be left to your imagination. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to write the Background section? It could be the solution to our dilemma! Thanks  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  12:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I will wait to see how consensus develops. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this an appropriate place to suggest that the picture of Sigmund Freud be removed? The picture lends an air of credibility to the subject matter and he is only tangentially related. WhatsBest (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review the good article criteria, especially number 6, which is that the article be, "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have done so. This entry states the image must be "relevant" and links to the Manual of Style which elaborates:
 * "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding."
 * If the main reason for including a picture is to conform to these guidelines, then it is "decorative" isn't it? WhatsBest (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What understanding does it illustrate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatsBest (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Freud is discussed in the book in a fair amount of detail, according to the Summary. Seems fair game to use an image of a person who is the subject of non-trivial discussion in the article. If you think the mention of Freud brings credence to a subject then all that tells us is your opinion of Freud. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. 1. it's not my opinion of Freud this tells you about (to my mind a picture of Freud on something does nothing to reccomend it), it's my opinion of other people's opinions of Freud. Which is this: He is popularly understood to be the founder of a branch of modern mainstream medicine and his ideas are commonly referenced as factual.  2. In the PDF I found (no bibliography) the word "freud" appears 15 times in 209 pages. I don't know if this metric is horseshit or what tbh.. My impression is that is my be some distant "theoretical" basis for the content, but so is Catholicism. 3. So by way of being constructive, if a picture is required and it can't be the book cover or a picture of the author (fair use?). Maybe a picture of a bible or a priest or a church or something?
 * If the article's text actually mentioned the bible, priests, and churches, then the suggestion that pictures of these things should be added might have merit. In fact the article does not mention the bible, etc, so the suggestion is without merit. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can find you a hundred cranks who invoke the names of famous scientists top lend legitimacy to their bullshit. The question is one of asymmetry. Nicolosi undoubtedly did claim to be influenced by Freud and others, but that's irrelevant because his ideas were pseudoscientific and dangerous.
 * I'm afraid I don't care about "good article" criteria. An article that gives an unwarranted impression of legitimacy to dangerous pseudoscience is inherently bad. Guy (help!) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Including an image of Freud in the article does not imply that that Nicolosi's ideas are correct or that reparative therapy is effective. It is bizarre to suggest that it does. If anything, the exact opposite might be true: since Freud is regarded as discredited, one might reason that including an image of him in the article would imply that Nicolosi's ideas are discredited as well. You comment, "Nicolosi undoubtedly did claim to be influenced by Freud and others..." Am I to assume that you believe that Nicolosi was not, as a matter of fact, influenced by various authors, including Freud? What possible evidence could you have that Freud was not an influence on Nicolosi? None, of course. Freud is indisputably an influence on Nicolosi and to suggest otherwise is plainly false. I have restored the image as you have provided no valid reason for its removal. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes it does. It portrays this pseudoscience as part of the arc of mainstream psychotherapy, which it is not.
 * It's like including a picture of Einstein on the article on the E-Cat because Rossi claims to have been influenced by quantum theory.
 * The historical element is also important. Freud was a Victorian. Nicolosi was not. There had been a profound shift in social and medical views of homosexuality by Nicolosi's time, and he chose to promote religious doctrinaire beliefs as "science" based on the archaic social views of a man born in the previous century. So including a picture of Freud is massively undue, tending to serve Nicolosi's purpose, not that of a neutral encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 12:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * JzG, this may be news to you, but Freud is widely considered discredited. Freud and his ideas are not "mainstream psychotherapy" or mainstream anything at this stage. Including a picture of Freud is decidedly not "like including a picture of Einstein", because Freud's views do not have any kind of scientific acceptance remotely comparable to those of Einstein. Including a picture of Freud in the article thus does not enhance the credibility of Nicolosi's ideas; it much more realistically would have just the opposite effect. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I know that, as well. But in the public mind he has a certain cachet.
 * In fact the status of psychoanalysis as largely discarded is an even better reason not to include random pictures of famous people. Guy (help!) 14:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a "random picture", as you falsely claim. It is there for an obvious reason. Freud was a major influence on Nicolosi, even though you bizarrely tried to suggest that this is somehow not the case. You removed the picture for totally subjective reasons based on your evidence-free claims about the "public mind" and what you imagine it believes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point User:WhatsBest, but the Freud photo is not that important to me one way or the other. I suggest that if you can find a better photo, suggest it here and perhaps there will be consensus to send Siggy on his way and replace him with a better image.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  15:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no reason to keep the rfc going indefinitely. Someone might close it within a few days if there are no more comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will work on a compromise version of the article, which we can then discuss and see if we can hammer out a compromise agreement.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  17:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The rfc may as well be closed at this stage. If necessary someone can place a request for closure at AN/RFC. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will still keep working on compromise language because that is our ultimate goal, right? (To achieve a compromise solution.) If the RfC is closed in the meantime, I will introduce compromise language at the next stage of the dispute resolution process.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Before the RfC is closed, it might be worth mentioning in the article that the peddling or performance of such "therapy" is illegal in much of the civilized world, and even if it were "reparative", it is nonetheless criminal. GPinkerton (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the request for comment is to settle the issue of how much information about conversion therapy that is not specifically about the book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality ought to be included. So, no, information of the kind of you suggest should not be added before the request for comment is closed. First we resolve the request for comment, then we add any appropriate information. If there is going to be ongoing discussion here, I will wait before seeking a close to the rfc. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment, as requested, is above. GPinkerton (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see where your comment is. What is your point? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See above.
 * What I meant was, why on Earth would you tell me where your comment is when I can obviously see perfectly well where it is? It seems a strange thing to do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to keep this discussion open in order to move to close and add the information. Go ahead and do both or either. GPinkerton (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main thing I'm working on is adding a Background section, which RexxS suggested (above). I think we should briefly mention changes in the law since 1991 (when the book was published). I'm going to try to do that in one sentence so as to not belabour the point, but also not ignore that important fact.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a background section giving the views of professional organizations on conversion therapy. I believe the request for comment is likely to produce a consensus in favor of one. Unfortunately an editor jumped the gun and made a whole series of edits without any attempt at building consensus for them, despite the fact that a dispute resolution procedure is ongoing here and not yet concluded. The user in question should chill and discuss things here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , consensus is already obvious above. Guy (help!) 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the fact that you made many changes that you have never attempted to discuss, that have not been discussed or debate during the request for comment, and for which there perfectly obviously is no consensus whatever. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I believe it best to request closure from an uninvolved administrator. I have placed a request for an administrator who has not edited the article to close the rfc at WP:RFCLOSE. Whoever closes the rfc and assesses the results needs to be both neutral and seen to be neutral. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's no need to formally close the RfC, consensus is clear. Guy (help!) 12:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is building agreement to add a "background" section giving the views of professional organizations on conversion therapy, but firstly, the details remain to be worked out, and secondly, adding a "background" section was not what your edits did. Please respect Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures, give editors time to work out the details of what should be done, and refrain from jumping the gun when things are still under discussion. An uninvolved administrator who has made no edits to the article (eg, not you) should close the rfc when appropriate. Restoring disputed edits unsupported by consensus, as you have done, is disruptive. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Solution 1: put ==Background== before the last two paras of the lede I took directly from the lead of conversion therapy, and we're done.
 * Solution 2: revert to a version everyone agrees fails WP:NPOV because sometime Real Soon Now an admin will come along and tell us to do solution 1.
 * Why is solution 2 better, again? And who appointed you WP:OWNer of this article? Guy (help!) 14:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. You made a whole series of changes that have never been discussed on the talk page, immediately and inappropriately restored them when reverted, and are totally ignoring the need to discuss your changes on the talk page. Your behavior is inappropriate. Please take a step back, discuss things, and let consensus develop among interested editors. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that, sir, is rich coming from someone who is at their third revert and leaving grossly obnoxious edit summaries. Guy (help!) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * JzG, respectfully, the solution is simply to step back, give other editors time to comment, and let Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures take their course. Stop trying to force through disputed changes that have not been discussed and have no consensus to support them. You are 100% free to try to convince other editors to share your views, but it is 100% inappropriate to try to force changes through without proper discussion and agreement. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , again: you are at your third revert and leaving grossly obnoxious edit summaries in favour of a version which, and I cannot stress this enough, there is unambiguous consensus above, violates NPOV. You also reintroduced wildly inappropriate primary-sourced material from the Washington Examiner and Daily Signal, both of which are WP:UNDUE unless third parties attest to their significance. Vice is also a terrible source. I am pretty sure you know this. You could have built on my edit and steered it towards a version you think more accurately represents the consensus - you know, the whole collaborative editing thing - but instead you have repeatedly reverted to a version that fails core policy. That does not seem smart to me. It's unclear on what basis you get to decide that I (as a new editor coming in and seeing the consensus ion RfC and deciding tro enact iot) have to "step back". Again, who appointed you owner, guardian and gatekeepr here? Guy (help!) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know how many reverts I have made. Don't care what you think of my edit summaries. You are incorrect to claim that there is agreement that the article violates NPOV. Only one editor but you suggested that. There is developing agreement that a "background" section with the views of professional organizations would improve the article, but there is no agreement the current version violates WP:NPOV. Feel free to start a discussion about the Washington Examiner and Daily Signal. No one appointed me "owner" of the article, but that does not mean that you get final say over what happens here or are free from the need to get consensus for the changes you want to make. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:28, 13 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)
 * Thank you Darryl Kerrigan that is very helpful. Among your many excellent suggestions, this is one that I will think about because I think your point is valid: "... the [Background] 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)."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, per WP:PSCI, the policy on pseudoscience. Experts about this are modern mainstream psychologists.  I've seen an argument about ethics of distributing a book being a separate topic than the factual accuracy of the claims.  They are intertwined, since the promotion of discredited beliefs presented as facts or as equal opinions (WP:FALSEBALANCE) is unethical.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Final RfC comment from OP
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)

Edits
Change:
 * Lead
 * Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about conversion therapy by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi, who draws on work by previous authors, maintains that the form of conversion therapy he promotes, "reparative therapy", does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son. The book was first published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991.
 * The work, which advocates a therapeutic approach that departs from traditional psychoanalytic techniques, influenced the practice of conversion therapy. 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. 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. In 2019, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was withdrawn from sale by Amazon following a campaign by gay rights activists. Some commentators supported Amazon's decision, while others criticized it as a form of censorship. The book remained available from other booksellers.

To:
 * Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about conversion therapy by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi, who draws on work by previous authors, maintains that the form of conversion therapy he promotes, "reparative therapy", does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son. The book was first published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991.
 * The work, which advocates a therapeutic approach that departs from traditional psychoanalytic techniques, influenced the practice of conversion therapy.
 * 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. 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.
 * Conversion therapy is pseudoscientific. There is no reliable evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and medical institutions warn that conversion therapy practices are ineffective and potentially harmful.    Medical, scientific, and government organizations in the United States and United Kingdom have expressed concern over the validity, efficacy and ethics of conversion therapy.
 * Due to both evidence of harm and civil rights concerns, conversion therapy is illegal or restricted in an increasing number of jurisdictions. In 2019, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was withdrawn from sale by Amazon.

The additional text and sources are from the lead of { 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)
 * Image of Freud
 * Removed crap sources
 * 1. WP:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Your addition to the lead violates that rule. It might not have if a "background" section had been added, as proposed, but such a section has not been added as yet. The "background" section should be added first, then whatever adjustments or changes to the lead are necessary should be made. Also, if necessary remind yourself that the article is about a specific book, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, not about conversion therapy in general. It is thus not appropriate to simply repeat information from the lead of Conversion therapy here. The information should be presented in a way appropriate to this specific article, which has a different focus from the Conversion therapy article.
 * 2. As for the image of Freud, I do not apologize for pointing out that the good article criteria mandate that an article should be illustrated if possible. It is your casual indifference to the good article criteria that is actually "bizarre". Since Freud was an important influence on Nicolosi and is discussed in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, the image clearly is not "gratuitous", it is entirely appropriate. You have claimed that including an image of Freud in the article somehow makes Nicolosi's ideas appear credible to people. You are just making that up. You obviously have no evidence of it, and it is inherently implausible.
 * 3. You say, "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 "we" you speak of does not exist. You obviously do not and cannot speak for all readers or potential readers of the article. You are in no position to say what they do or do not know. In all probability many readers of the article will be totally new to the subject and will not in fact know what conservatives think of Amazon's decision to stop selling the book, because they have read nothing about this issue and the surrounding controversy. Basically, your view seems to be that because you know what conservatives think, and do not like it, you do not want conservatives' views mentioned here. WP:NPOV simply does not support you here. The reliability and appropriateness of the sources used (Washington Examiner, Vice, the Daily Signal) is of course a completely different issue from that of the inherent value of information about the controversy surrounding Amazon's decision; your comment unfortunately ignores that distinction. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , so the first objection can be fixed by adding "== Background==" before the section ont he scientific consensus. I'll do that now. MOS rules are the very lamest of all lame reasons to resist policy-compliant edits, but whatever. Guy (help!) 20:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , moving on to the second substantive content issue, there are three lengthy paragraphs on the Amazon ban, which accounts for about 40% of the reception section. This is clearly excessive (Amazon is big, but they are only one company). The obvious best way to approach trimming this is to remove primary sources in the form "X said Y, source, X saying Y", where X is not an authority. Opinion pieces by random individuals are not useful, and we do not include them when the source is reliable, much less when it's marginal (as the Washington Examiner clearly is).
 * And yes we (the collective we of Wikipedia) do know that the conservative movement is strongly anti-LGBT. Evangelicals, Catholics, social conservatives and anti-culture-warriors are a substantial constituency in the conservative movement. The Heritage Foundation, publisher of the Daily Signal, is opposed to marriage equality. That is an additional point against its inclusion as a primary source, not the only point. Opinion pieces in crappy sources like Vice, Daily Signal and Washington Examiner should be excluded. And as for American Conservative, |I cannot believe that you actually reverted back in an opinion piece by Rod Dreher, a, titled Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern. I invite you to self-reverty that obviously inapprropriate reinsertion. Guy (help!) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , finally, on the image, the GA criteria are irrelevant to NPOV. The inclusion of the image dramatically inflates the significance of the text in its caption: "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." This is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. A lay reader seeing this will think that Nicolosi was basing his arguments on the foundational principles of psychoanalysis (and here's a picture of an extremely distinguished looking gent to prove it). In fact, he based them, as the article makes clear, on his own personal religious beliefs, and invoked Freud's Victorian beliefs as part of his policy-based evidence making. Science is supposed to start with evidence and work to conclusions. Nicolosi, as the article makes clear, started form a conclusion and set about fitting evidence to it. We know this because (a) he is an extreme outlier in the profession att he time and (b) it doesn't actually work, according to allt he available evidence.
 * There might theoretically be a worse reason for including an image that confers spurious legitimacy on a pseudoscience than "GA says we should have a picture if possible", but I haven't seen it yet. Guy (help!) 21:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree with you that the amount of space about the Amazon controversy is excessive. You cite no relevant policy or guideline and are simply basing yourself on personal opinion. It is an opinion I see no reason to share. Frankly, the Amazon controversy is a major part of why the book is notable at all. Amazon's banning it has created many more discussions of it than would otherwise have existed. So it is perfectly appropriate to devote space to the issue. Your comment that the "we" of the Wikipedia community "do know that the conservative movement is strongly anti-LGBT" is utterly presumptuous. It effectively implies that conservatives are not part of the Wikipedia community and that being a conservative is not allowed here. How dare you. How utterly inappropriate. Wikipedia is intended to be a non-political project, not a project that reflects your personal political stance. People who are not card-carrying liberals have a perfect right to edit. By the way, your comment above about Rod Dreher is an obvious and blatant violation of WP:BLP. It should be removed from the talk page, but as you are an administrator, I suppose it will stay. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You also comment, "The inclusion of the image dramatically inflates the significance of the text in its caption: "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." This is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. A lay reader seeing this will think that Nicolosi was basing his arguments on the foundational principles of psychoanalysis (and here's a picture of an extremely distinguished looking gent to prove it)." No, JzG, the picture caption is not "a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority". It is a demonstrably true, factual statement. Nicolosi does write that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological. You have no means of knowing what the "lay reader" will or will not think on reading that statement. If the "lay reader" does get the idea that Nicolosi based his beliefs on "principles of psychoanalysis" then that's fine, because Nicolosi did in fact base his beliefs in part on psychoanalytic ideas. It is simply untrue to claim otherwise. I highly doubt that you have read Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, but if you do ever read it, you will find that psychoanalysis is a major influence on Nicolosi. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Background section
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)

Freud's view of homosexuality
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." Can we agree to leave out this invalid statement? (See also Homosexuality and psychology). 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)
 * , that further supports my strong belief that the image is WP:UNDUE in this article. We are basically endorsing Nicolosi's fallacious - and, it turns out bogus - appeal to authority. Guy (help!) 22:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I too agree. Why is there a picture of Freud on this article when there could much more relevantly be an image of the author, rather than a completely spurious picture of an unrelated and long-deceased non-Catholic. GPinkerton (talk) 14:05, 14 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)


 * Freeknowledgecreator wrote (above): "... it is quite mistaken to believe that you can resolve the question of what Freud thought about homosexuality by a single quotation from him." You might have missed this: (See also Homosexuality and psychology).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not specially interested in that article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are changing the subject. Would you acknowledge that I was not trying to "resolve the question of what Freud thought about homosexuality by a single quotation from him"?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The important point here is that debating exactly what Freud's view of homosexuality really was or was not serves no purpose. It is a complex issue that even informed scholars can disagree about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, at the very least it would change the text of the image caption to "Nicolosi falsely claimed that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological". Guy (help!) 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are attaching an excessive and absurd degree of importance to a simple image caption. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I had not wanted to comment on this again, but since some people have continued to make an issue of the appropriateness of the (now removed) caption, here is a quotation from Kenneth Lewes's book The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, which is a scholarly study. See here and here.


 * Lewes writes, "A more difficult issue in Freud is the relation of homosexuality to psychopathology. One extreme position is that homosexuality is in itself a psychopathological entity that necessarily involves other inhibitions of function. A more moderate position is that homosexuality is a feature of other pathological conditions, and, while it may generally be thought of as pathognomonic, it cannot be used for diagnostic specification. The other extreme position is that no necessary connection exists between homosexuality and psychopathology. According to this view, homosexuality represents a variation in the direction the sexual instinct may take, and it can be considered 'abnormal' only in a statistical sense. To the end, Freud seems to have been undecided on the relationship between homosexuality and psychopathology, and he advanced statements that can be located in all three positions."


 * This quotation from a respected scholarly source makes it perfectly clear that Freud's actual views on homosexuality are a matter of dispute and that Freud made inconsistent statements on the issue. I understand that those who think they have resolved the issue of what Freud thought about homosexuality with that one quotation from his letter to an American mother are acting in good faith. The source I have provided shows that they are quite mistaken, however. That the source is not Freud himself, but rather an independent scholar's assessment of Freud, makes it all the more credible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception section
I think we can reach a compromise on the Reception section. I suggest the following.


 * Do not edit the section for now.


 * Solicit advice/information about the publications some consider to be unreliable sources.
 * Note: I am using a cool tool—the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD), a user script that identifies various unreliable and potentially unreliable sources. (Be sure to read the info at the top of the page, e.g., "It does not cover every unreliable source out there. ... It is not perfect.") The UPSD identified The American Conservative as a "generally unreliable source". (Again, please read the tool's limitations as this result is not definitive, just a piece of information for this discussion.)


 * The main problem I see with the Reception section is that it's too long. I am not that concerned about the content as long as it remains balanced (WP:UNDUE and all that). I'm willing to work on condensing that section, although if a neutral editor wants to do it, that would be ideal. Either way, I'll wait until we determine which, if any, of the current sources are considered generally reliable and should not be used as a reference in this article.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , There's certainly too much in there about the Amazon ban, but that's trivially easy to resolve: just remove the primary-sourced opinions (several of which are listed on WP:RSP as controversial anyway, e.g. Vice and the Washington Examiner, both of which are of low factual quality) and leave the Newsweek overview which is much more measured and analytical. There's absolutely no way in hell we should be including primary-sourced diatribes with titles like "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern" from American Conservative, which is listed at RSP as "published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization, TAC is considered biased or opinionated".
 * Non-expert bloviation in low-grade non-specialist and biased publications should not be included without compelling evidence from secondary sources that they are considered significant. That is Wikipedia sourcing 101 stuff. "X bitched and moaned about it, source, X bitching and moaning about it" is always a bad idea, as is "Y said it was great, source, Y saying it was great". In any contentious area the safe course is to stick to reliable independent secondary sources of an analytical nature. Guy (help!) 12:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the gist of your argument, but let's wait until this RfC closes and then proceed to the next stage of dispute resolution.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  13:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazon banning the book is a major part of why Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality is notable at all. The decision ironically brought increased attention to the book and generated more news stories about it; were it not for that, the book might be only borderline notable in terms of Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing wrong with giving a significant amount of space to the issue. It is appropriate for the amount of space given to the issue in the article to reflect the number of stories dealing with it. JzG's complaint about "Non-expert bloviation" misunderstands the nature of the issue: no one is an "expert" on the ethical rights or wrongs of a bookseller selling a particular book, making the "expert" status of the authors quoted irrelevant. JzG's demand for "compelling evidence from secondary sources that they are considered significant" does not reflect WP:NPOV. It states, "neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight". The views that JzG is trying to exclude clearly are "verifiable points of view" and they do meet the test of due weight. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you created the article before the ban, so clearly that was not your view then. And while the Amazon ban may well be a source of lots of noise, it is a response to the book being widely criticised as dangeorus nonsense, not a cause of it. It's also a truly terrible reason to include primary-sourced opinion from biased and unreliable sources, still less to edit-war over it. NPOV says we include significant viewpoints. We do that by reference to reliable independent secondary sources that describe the viewpoints, and occasionally by reference to directly relevant expert primary sources. It is not a license to mine the internet for random blowhards on any side of an issue. Including a primary sourced article from a source listed as unreliable at WP:RSP with a title including the word "Homintern", in the absence of a single reliable secondary source discussing this article (that I could find, anyway - a total of 28 GHits for the phrase in quotes, including the original article), is a pretty solid indication that you are doing something badly wrong. This is Wikipedia sourcing 101 stuff. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, so we don't go mining the internet for primary-sourced opinions because you can find anything you want, from the Earth being flat to water turning the frogs gay. This especially applies to sources that are considered biased or otherwise problematic per WP:RSP (and note that Washington Examiner, Vice, American Conservative are all listed at RSP as and none is considered reliable for facts). This is really not hard: Reliable. Independent. Secondary. The Wikipedia sourcing trifecta, with the onus very firmly on anyone seeking to include any other source to show that it is appropriate per the usual policies (which is the exact opposite of the approach you're taking, instead asserting that your preferred version, which you yourself wrote, is the "consensus" version, when you have reverted pretty much all other editors). Guy (help!) 09:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There you go presuming to know my mind again. The fact is, I've started plenty of articles about books without caring overly much whether the book is notable or not. This book was definitely rendered much more notable by Amazon withdrawing it from sale. The precise reasons why that decision has attracted attention do not matter. What does matter is that there are a lot of stories about it, and said stories are the largest reason the book is notable at all. While you have every right to your view that we should assess "significant viewpoints" by "reference to reliable independent secondary sources that describe the viewpoints, and occasionally by reference to directly relevant expert primary sources", that is personal opinion. WP:NPOV does not mandate that. I note that while you praised the Newsweek article ("measured and analytical"), it was written by a journalist, who would be just as easy to write off as a "non-expert" as anyone else. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely grateful to you for directing my attention to WP:RS/P, a page I had not previously been familiar with. It pretty much supports what I have said all along. For example: "There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions." Using it as a source for "attributed opinions" is all that I have done. In other words, I am using this source in what is considered an acceptable way. In the case of Vice we find, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." In other words, the source is a matter for dispute, and there is no consensus against it. In the case of the Washington Examiner: "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." I have properly attributed statements from the Examiner, which again seems to be considered an acceptable approach. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, it does not. It really does not. The entire point there is that you are introducing sources generally considered unreliable, for primary-sourced opinions, which we should not be using in contentious articles. Absolutely no reliable sources mention the name of the "Homintern" article, for example, so that is a random piece of extremist bloviation in a biased and deprecated source with no independent evidence of significancew, so absolutely should not be included.
 * This is 100% standard. We don't go mining the internet for random opinions on crappy websites. That's not what "reliable independent secondary source" means. Guy (help!) 13:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have quoted what WP:RS/P actually states, about sources such as The American Conservative. It perfectly clearly does support what I have been saying: "There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions." Once again: using The American Conservative as a source for "attributed opinions" is all I have done. I understand that you are acting in good faith, but the guideline you directed me to quite clearly does not support your position. You have failed to discuss the details of what WP:NPOV actually states, or to explain how it justifies your stance. Everything you are saying about how the article should be written and how and which sources should be used falls into the domain of personal opinion. It is opinion that you are certainly entitled to, but you cannot necessarily expect others to share it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the Reception section is too long. It is within a reasonable length. As for reliability of sources, it pays to keep in mind that whether a source is reliable or not may depend on the purpose for which it is being used. In the case of The American Conservative, it is being used simply as a source for what opinion was expressed in its pages. In my view that is a reasonable use of it, considering that the opinion in question is presented only as an opinion, not as objective fact. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned citations/references


- Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't care how the article is formatted, within reason. It should use a consistent citation style, however. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. I am not familiar with the citation style the article uses, so I flounder some trying to figure it out!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the chaotic recent editing at the article has introduced an inconsistent mixture of different citation styles. If no one has a better suggestion, I would suggest simply returning to what the article used before (the sfn system). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator
FYI, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of. Guy (help!) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know Guy. ¶ I keep hearing a voice in my head ... Gomer Pyle exclaiming, "Well gall-eee! Surprise, surprise, surprise!"  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG's edit
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)
 * , And the reason you are wrong is that (a) it's tendentious content created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, so all of it defaults to be excluded unless there's consensus for inclusion and (b) per the discussion above the only con voice for that was said sockpuppet.
 * Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. This book promotes harmful pseudoscience beloved of anti-gay bigots. Yes, if you go and look you can find primary references to anti-gay bigots condemning its withdrawal by Amazon. But you need to establish that the statement of any specific anti-gay bigot is significant (per WP:UNDUE) before including that voice, and the way we do that on Wikipedia is by reference to reliable secondary sources. I looked for any reliable source reporting the opinions of anti-gay bigots that the now-blocked sockpuppet of the banned user added to this article, and found none. I was also fully consistent in that I removed primary referenced opinions by gay rights activists as well. We do not need either: we have reliable secondary sources already cited.
 * If you genuinely think it's appropriate to include a diatribe with a headline calling gay rights activists the "Homintern", based on the primary source alone, which is considered generally unreliable, and when no secondary source discusses it, then I don't know what to say to you.
 * Once you've self-reverted your reintroduction of deprecated and unreliable sources such as the Washington Times, we can discuss it here. Guy (help!) 15:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already added a secondary source for Dreher's view on the Amazon issue prior to your reversion: diff.
 * Your contention that attributed opinions must be cited to secondary sources has no basis in policy and is incompatible with WP:BIASED and WP:RSOPINION. If you wish to propose this as a general standard, please do so at WP:Village pump (policy).
 * You appear to be mistaken in your statements about sources. (A) You said that The American Conservative was "considered generally unreliable". WP:RSP lists it as "no consensus", and states "There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions". If you wish to contest its classification, please do so at WP:RSN. (B) You mentioned "[my] reintroduction of deprecated and unreliable sources such as the Washington Times". (a) I did not do anything with The Washington Times; it was never there to begin with. (b) As far as I can tell, none of the sources I actually did reintroduce are considered "generally unreliable" or "deprecated". (c) WP:RSP lists The Washington Times as "no consensus" and "marginally reliable". It is not listed on WP:DEPS.
 * You edited the lead to state Conversion therapy,a therapeutic approach that departs from traditional psychoanalytic techniques.... This is a highly misleading presentation of the history of conversion therapy.
 * You edited the "Reception" section to remove all three reviews in scholarly journals (Payne, Weinrich, Freeman). Your reasons for doing so are opaque to me. Contemporaneous book reviews are a noteworthy aspect of any book's reception.
 * You also removed content related to the Amazon issue. WP:SPOV requires that we state unequivocally that conversion therapy is discredited. It does not mean that we should take a stance on whether Amazon should sell conversion therapy or ex-gay books, or omit the fact that Amazon's decision was somewhat controversial at the time. While I have no particular attachment to any of the commentators mentioned, I think that it is more NPOV to present a broad array of opinions from both the gay press and the socially conservative press than to eliminate either or both.
 * "Anti-gay bigots" is a violation of BLPTALK.
 * I saw the socking allegation at ANI and found it alarming. If FKC is Skoojal, there are serious implications for various other articles. Nevertheless I disagree with your edits here. gnu 57 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you supported the unreliable Dreher opinion with an opinion piece in another low-grade source. Where's the evidence this diatribe was significant in any way?
 * We have an policy that says opinions need secondary sources if they are challenged or contentious: WP:UNDUE.
 * Usable for attributed opinions means not usable for facts. It is a biased source. You can tell because it has headlines talking about the "Homintern".
 * Anti-gay bigots is only a violation of BLPTALK if it's not supported by sources. Dreher's article shows him to be an anti-gay bigot.
 * Here's what your precious secondary source says:
 * "Amazon has removed from its list of books for sale the work of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. His crime? Writing about techniques of “conversion therapy,” designed to help those who do not wish to identify as homosexual. As Rod ­Dreher points out, Amazon sells Hitler’s Mein Kampf, apologias for Stalin’s crimes, books by the white supremacist David Duke, a translation of The SS Leadership Guide, and countless other rebarbative titles. But something that casts doubt on today’s sexual ideologies? That’s beyond the pale. Amazon’s action demonstrates the singular power of LGBT activists to “unperson” a person."
 * Not only is this a tendentious self-published view in an explicitly Christian source (and let's not forget that Reno's COVID-19 bullshit led to his Twitter account being deleted), it is also factually inaccurate in a way that undermines its already wafer-thin credibility. The book was withdrawn from sale not because it "casts doubt on today’s sexual ideologies", but because the scientific community says that it promotes dangerous nonsense. It purports to be an evidence-based medical book (in a way Mein Kampf does not) but in fact it promotes a dangerous and incorrect ideological dogma that is promoted as being much more legitimate than literal Nazism. At least people are ashamed to openly admit to being Nazis. Guy (help!) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's concentrate on merging this article into the article about the author. Then we can discuss the book in a more abbreviated manner, although IMHO that should include reference to the book reviews, i.e., I agree with gnu. (Re: American Conservative as a reliable source or not, I don't know enough about the publication.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not. But after a merge we will condense and focus on secondary sources, which is fine. The issue is primary sourced diatribes by gay rights activists and queer-bashers, neither of which is encyclopaedic. Guy (help!) 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. Sounds like a good plan.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm under the weather and will likely be away from the internet for the next week or so. I was going to respond at greater length, but I'll just say briefly: ¶ As I mentioned above, I have no particular attachment to any of these commentators, but disagree with removing them wholesale. Several other commentators besides Dreher opined that the removal was censorship and/or that Amazon was being inconsistent in not removing Hitler's books as well (e.g., ). The Christian Post also covered Dreher's remarks. His Wikipedia article has been heavily edited by an SPA who seems not to like him much. ¶ Regarding 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)
 * A good reason why a secondary source would be useful here for instance is that stores have the choice about what they sell, there's no obligation for them to sell everything, censorship/freespeech laws not being applicable. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)