Talk:National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: While this is not an LGBT organization, its actions fall within the scope of this WikiProject. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
Contents |
[edit] Sept 2005
Note (Sept 2005): NPOV calls for presenting "sexual preferences/sexual orientation" together, as both 'orientation' and 'preference' are inherently biased by implication.
Note that NARTH itself uses the term "sexual adaptation": "The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable." - Serge Dupouy 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Obvious bias towards homosexual behaviour, this organization believes in so-called reparative therapy which most in the mental health community condemn. Ifnord 16:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Political?
First of all excuse me for my broken English. It is said in the article: This event is notable as the first (but not last) decision in history to feature a scientific organization changing its policies on political, not scientific ground, as a result of a vote, at least in the 20th century. Is this an official statement of APA? Is this a statement developed by an official, neutral organization or media? I don't see cited source of this fact(?). Because if this is a statement declared only by NARTH, I thing that objectivity of the article is problematic. --Stalik 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotta love it. It's perfectly okay for homosexual researchers such as Simon LeVay or sympathizers such as Evelyn Hooker to use poor research controls and get away with it. Face it, there is no such thing as objectivity in psychological research. That's why John Dewey famously said that the scientific method was inapplicable to human behavior. All psychology is political, I don't hear any of you complaining about the Marxist influences in Jean Paiget or Abraham Maslow's research.
What about the twins' study conducted by Dean Hamer? The study's small sample was so small that it was statistically laughable. That's not to mention that only around 50 percent of the identical twins where one twin was homosexual, the other one was also. It should have been a 100 percent result, that is if homosexuality were genetic, but his study also failed to account for environmental factors.
The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973 had nothing to do with objective standards of research and everything to do with politics. Hooker's study is for one riddled with political biases, such as her work with the gay Marxist Mattachine Society, or her notoriously unreliable heterosexual comparison group. Then you have Kinsey's flawed studies, etc.
If the same standards and methods used by homosexual activists to get homosexuality removed from the DSM were applied by schizophrenia activists, schizophrenia would come off the DSM tomorrow.
The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc., have become little more than the research arm of the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, etc. Political group indeed. --68.45.161.241 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias in favor of NARTH
The use of "so-called" to refer to the hard sciences and mainstream political associations is a common tactic used by many to cast doubt on the named groups. I recommend, at the very least, the removal of those terms.
Also, in the last line, where it says: "But consultation of the NARTH website shows that many of its research results have been accepted by peer-reviewed journals," the article makes no mention of what articles have been accepted by the peer-reviewed jorunals (PRJs). If the articles accepted by the PRJs are not on the subject of NARTH's "homosexual therapies," then their mention in this article should be removed, as it seems to imply that while that one paper mentioned was not accepted, others of the same type were. --Triphesas 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
The article quotes Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons. How is he connected to NARTH? Fireplace 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
He is with the Catholic Medical Association - take a wild guess. 87.171.124.212 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Nicolosi, User:Mike Hatfield, Joie de Vivre (found this in google news)
This article is about some recent edits here. I think now would be a good time for all personally-interested parties to step back from editing the page a bit, and work here on the talk page to reach a compromise. Assume Good Faith on ALL SIDES, and I think this will go much smoother. I am sure everyone wants this organization to be presented fairly and accurately.--Jimbo Wales 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that User:Mike Hatfield, their editorial director made some changes to the article, which were reverted by User:Joie de Vivre. They want Joie to be prohibited from making changes to the article, but obviously there are better way to handle the dispute. I've dropped at note on Mike's talk page, asking him to discuss the matter. utcursch | talk 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also found this on google news and agree with Jimbo - interested parties should step back. IMHO articles which have more info on the criticism than the actual subject area are generally not neutral. --Trödel 11:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Nicolosi's concerns
I was surprised to discover that Nicolosi's response to my revert of the insertion of unsourced material was a demanding, defamatory letter to Jimbo Wales, rather than a request for discussion on the article's or my Talk page. No one from NARTH contacted me regarding their concerns. I became aware of their position only when NYC JD helpfully informed me on my Talk page that Nicolosi, in his letter to Wales, had stated: "We insist that [Joie de Vivre] be prohibited from making future changes on the NARTH site".
I would have been perfectly willing to discuss User:Mike Hatfield's concerns, had he raised them. In January 2007, I responded to a nearly identical concern raised by User:Acdixon, regarding whether the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) organization maintains that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Our discussion, while thorough, remained polite, and resulted not only in a harmonious resolution of the content dispute, but in mutual thanks and praise. After resolving the issue, User:Acdixon's response was:
- "Thank you for remaining diplomatic and open during this discourse. I believe this discussion represents a classic example of how disputes on Wikipedia are to be handled."
I believe that this demonstrates that I would have responded appropriately to Mike Hatfield's concerns, had he made any effort to express them. Rather than by making any effort to communicate with me, Nicolosi immediately responded to the issue with demands to Jimbo Wales that I be banned from contributing. Nicolosi even referred to me as a "lesbian socio-political activist" in his letter. I do not recall ever having revealed either my gender or my sexual orientation on Wikipedia, or to Mr. Nicolosi. It seems that my mere association with WikiProject:LGBT studies led him to make assumptions about my gender and sexual orientation, despite the diversity among the Project's members.
Nicolosi's response as NARTH's representative is a sudden departure from the courteous discussion of content I have come to regard as normal at Wikipedia. I hope that Nicolosi, Hatfield and other NARTH associates will familiarize themselves with the local customs before causing further disruption. I thoroughly agree with Nicolosi's assertion that "It is dangerous for [Wikipedia's] credibility to have political activists slanting articles to fit their own political objectives." Cordially, Joie de Vivre 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag
This article does not present a neutral point of view because it includes unbalanced quantity of information and does not properly describe the subject matter before engaging in criticism. --Trödel 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- This edit is indicitive of the problem such a large criticism section has - the criticisms are criticised, the detail is too much, and the page devolves into an argumentative essay instead of an informative encyclopedia article. --Trödel 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On whether NARTH views homosexuality as a mental disorder
This quote may be helpful to whoever wants to tackle this article next:
"NARTH is an association founded to study homosexuality. We make the assumption that obligatory homosexuality is treatable disorder. Our members hold many variations of that essential view. The NARTH officers may opt to deny or remove membership when an individual’s written statements or public speeches show a clear antipathy to this position. We do not always choose to exercise this option, but will do so when, in our judgment, a potential member is likely to be disruptive because he or she is blatantly opposed to our goals." National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (1996), Letter to Ralph Roughton, M.D. from Joseph Nicolosi, NARTH Secretary June 10. Fireplace 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above is cited in Jack Drescher MD, "I’m Your Handyman: A History of Reparative Therapies" Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 36(1) 1998. Fireplace 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
