Talk:Joseph Nicolosi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Cleanup

Originally I stumbled across this article and thought it was a non-notable vanity entry. I was going to propose a Article for Deletion but Googling showed otherwise. He's actually infamous, try Googling his name with quack and you'll get 150 entries. So, I cleaned up some POV and added an external link. And the reverts go back and forward... Ifnord 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested deletion

Delete this articleGLGerman 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Can you explain your reasons for why you think this article should be deleted? 70.59.196.16 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: expand on theories

Can we add some of Nicolosi's theories about homosexuality in here, such as that he has written that fathers can "prevent" their sons from becoming gay by showering with them? Or that homosexuals don't truly exist? Proponents of Nicolosi's theories would no doubt claim the article would be biased against him then, because his theories would inherently come off as ridiculous. But then again, theyu are. If that's what he believes, then why can't we mention some of them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.241.225.181 (talk • contribs) 19:26, September 9, 2006 (UTC).

This article can and should be expanded. Nicolosi is indeed infamous, he is a central figure in the so-called "ex-gay" religious/pseudo-scientific movement, and his work is cited by many who oppose gay civil rights and homosexuality in general, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson. Gay activist Wayne Besen might be a good source of information on this guy, since he's done a lot of research into his theories and written a book on "ex-gays". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.241.225.181 (talk • contribs) 19:28, September 9, 2006 (UTC).

Female homosexuality?

Does Nicolosi, or any other reparative therapist for that matter, ever talk about female homosexuality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rglong (talk • contribs) 20:08, September 9, 2006 (UTC).

Yes, reparative therapists do address the issue of female same-sex behavior. Contact NARTH for more information.

I'm glad this article is here. However it lacks depth and intellectual honesty, as it presents Nicolosi and his work solely from the viewpoint of the critic and ignores the viewpoint of the proponent. It should be expanded to offer a more fair and balanced perspective. Perhaps one could begin by stating his theories in their proper context. Another would be to cite statistics comparing the number of individuals somehow "harmed" by reparative therapy to the number of individuals who've realized their own therapeutic goals (keeping in mind that reparative therapy, by definition, is self-directed and voluntary).

If one is secure in their position, they will not be threatened with any and all evidence in support of the opposition.WarriorLeo 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

Wow. Good job guys. Your "controversy" and "quotes" are 2x what the information about the person is. The selective quoting to make him seem like a sexual pervert is just magnificent. One would think an encyclopedia wasn't done to put all effort to make someone seem like quack. All I came here for was information on the guy's career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.228.88 (talk • contribs) 17:47, March 11, 2007 (UTC).

there are just as many "air quotes" around words from the proponents, which is why this article is terrible. The NPOV here is just as bad as any other contentious issue, and I doubt it will get better unless some objective contructors comment here.CivEngAlyssa (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I placed fact tags on content that Joshuajohanson added (and attributed without sources) to Nicolosi.
I created a Bibliography section for the books N has written
There was a statement that N had been associated with reparative therapy "for 15 years". Per WP:MOS, I converted this to a statement that will not become dated (i.e. "Since 1992"), but this statement needs a citation.
I reinstated the blanked Quotations section.

-- Joie de Vivre 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced sections

The following content (added by Joshuajohanson) is here, until it can be sourced:

This, it is argued, leads to a quest for bonding and fulfilment, oftentimes in what is perceived to be inappropriate and dysfunctional manners such as compulsive sexual gratification. It describes homosexuality as the need to possess the perceived manhood or womanhood of the object of desire:

It is worth noting that reparative therapists hold that a propensity for an emotional bisexuality would seem to exist in all men, for example, as is evidenced by the male need for camaraderie and bonding.^{[citation needed]} It is in the fulfilment of these unfulfilled needs that they believe the cure for homosexual attraction is to be found. Hence, it is not the innate emotional need for same-sex bonding that reparative therapy tries to correct, but what reparative therapists see as its dysfunctional expressions.

In general reparative therapists hold that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, and reparative therapies focus on discovery of historical factors that could have influenced the development of their homoerotic emotions in a subject.^{[citation needed]}

I left what Joshuajohanson claimed was said by Nicolosi (adding fact tags where appropriate). I moved this more generalized (unsourced) information here. Joie de Vivre 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias and misinformation

This article needs to be changed so that it reflects a neutral point of view. I have made a step in that direction by removing the claim that all mainstream organizations claim that sexual orientation is unchangeable. The source given ('Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth') does not say this. It does quote the American Academy of Pediatrics saying that reparative therapy offers 'little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation', but this is not the same claim; to say that there is 'little or no potential' is not the same thing as saying that change simply cannot occur. In any case, I note that 'Just the Facts' claims that 'Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen', which is false. Conversion therapies do not generally assume that homosexual orientation is freely chosen. One must ask, why is a document that contains a false claim of this nature treated as authoritative?Skoojal (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reparative therapy versus conversion therapy

Please be aware that 'conversion therapy' is not a synonym for reparative therapy; it includes numerous different approaches to changing sexual orientation. It includes things such as aversion therapy, which Nicolosi does not practice. The recent edit that changed 'reparative therapy' to 'conversion therapy' was a mistake and made the article less accurate. Skoojal (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was a mistake, why did you not correct it? -- Newagelink (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

He actually did make that edit, back when he was editing. However, this user has been banned since 2009, so even if he hadn't, criticizing him now would not do any good. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Annoying Sound-bite Quotations

This article contains four quotations from Joseph Nicolosi. I think that describing Nicolosi's views through using out-of-context quotations of this kind is silly and does a disservice to readers. The quotations should all be removed and replaced with a proper description of Nicolosi's theories; the sound-bite approach seen here is worse than useless. The quotation about how 'social scientists can ruin a generation' has nothing directly to do with Nicolosi's theories about homosexuality, and is gratuitous. Skoojal (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I have removed the quotations, which are all inappropriate. Instead of restoring these misleading sound-bites to the article, please use Nicolosi's books to give a proper description of his theories. Skoojal (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tags

I am going to remove most, perhaps all, of the 'neutrality disputed' tags in the near future due to the lack of any discussion on this article's neutrality. If anyone wants to dispute this, now is the time. Note also that I am considering getting rid of the link to the article by Ed Manier. His website states that he is a philosophy professor; I am not sure how this makes his opinion of Nicolosi's work relevant. Skoojal (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has evolved to remove every negative criticism of this person. Where's the neutrality? Ifnord (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Misinformation: Who is President of NARTH?

The article states that Joseph Nicolosi is President of NARTH. However, if you look at the article on NARTH, it says that A. Dean Byrd is President. One of these two statements must be wrong. Skoojal (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Website makes clear the Byrd is the current President; I've corrected this. Skoojal (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't find quotation

Past versions of this article have included the following quotation from Nicolosi: "The basic premise of reparative therapy is that the majority of clients (approximately 90%, in my experience) suffer from a syndrome of male [gender-identity deficit. It is this internal sense of incompleteness in one's own maleness which is the essential foundation for homoerotic attraction. The causal rule of reparative therapy is "Gender identity determines sexual orientation." We eroticize what we are not identified with. The focus of treatment therefore is the full development of the client's masculine gender identity."

I'm considering readding this quotation, however, I've looked through Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality several times, and I can't find it in the book. Does anyone know what page or pages of the book this observation is on? Skoojal (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Past versions of the article (eg, this one [1]) seem to have attributed this quote to the wrong book; it's actually in Healing Homosexuality, not Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (and the quote wasn't quite accurate, by the way). I've readded it and corrected it. Skoojal (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

It should be removed. The reason I gave (the fact that most articles about conversion therapists do not have such sections or information) is good enough. There is no logic to adding it only to this article in particular. Furthermore, the information being added is distorted and of low quality. It states that, "Reparative therapy... is any therapy aimed at changing the sexual orientation of a patient"; if you look at the conversion therapy article, you will see that this is only one accepted definition. It violates NPOV and does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers to give only that particular definition. Christian Existentialist (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. Almost the entire psychiatric profession thinks this guy is a harmful quack, but the article reads as if it was written by a consortium of his PR guy, his best friend in the whole wide world and his mother. If you must routinely scrub the article of any shred of criticism, or for that matter or neutral language, please at least have the decency not to pretend it's done in the interest of accuracy and fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.61.18 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment above violates Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith, which is a well known and important policy. Furthermore, you have also violated Wikipedia's policies against edit warring, including the three revert rule, which I admit that not all new users are likely to know about. Repeat violations of this rule can lead to blocks. Please spend some time learning about policy! I am doing the best I can to improve this article. I have given several reasons for the edits I have made (repeated them, in fact), but you have unfortuntately not responded to my arguments. As I said, there are many articles about conversion therapists on Wikipedia and most of them do not have "criticism" sections of this kind. Are you going to add an identical "criticism" section to each and every one of those articles? If not, why are you singling Nicolosi out? It is without any justification that I can see. One could add this same exact content to every article about a conversion therapist, but it seems very silly to me to do so.

To discuss some of the changes that you have insisted upon and edit warred over: You seem to feel that the words "has concluded on the basis of his study and professional experience" must be removed from the lead. May I ask why? This is what Nicolosi states in his books, and Wikipedia's BLP policy does say that a subject's own words can be used to describe him if it is not unduly self-serving. I fail to see anything wrong with reporting Nicolosi's account of how he came to his views. If there were reliable sources that stated that he came to his views by some other method, then I am sure that they would have to be added too, to meet the requirements of NPOV. I don't know of any such sources. Christian Existentialist (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More recently, you've apparently suggested that Nicolosi is not notable and that maybe this article should be deleted. This is also silly. Nicolosi is a well known and controversial writer, and the suggestion that he is not notable is plainly not true. Proposing to delete the article is clearly not constructive! Why have you made all these changes to it, if you think that deletion is what is really required? Christian Existentialist (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the criticism section you've insisted on adding, without giving a full explanation of why reads, "Homosexuality was removed from the APA's diagnostic glossary of mental diseases in 1973, and from the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases in 1992." What has this to do with Nicolosi specifically? He had nothing to do with that decision, and didn't play any role in the arguments that lead to it, either for or against. I don't even know that he's even said it was a mistake. Christian Existentialist (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding how, "Almost the entire psychiatric profession thinks this guy is a harmful quack", do you have a source for this? Does almost the entire psychiatric profession use the actual expression "harmful quack", or is that only your interpretation of what they say? Do they indeed have any view of Nicolosi specifically? Please be aware that Wikipedia's BLP policy applies on talk pages too, and be careful not to cross the line. Christian Existentialist (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/0806exgay.pdf pretty much makes that statement, minus the colorful "quack" tag. It might be somewhat more efficient overall if Christian Existentialst would spend less time typing "...prove it to me" and more time with the Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.213.205 (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It does not mention Nicolosi. Christian Existentialist (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand what you are saying about the criticism section. Personally, I think it should be kept in, but perhaps rewritten. The criticism doesn't address Nicolosi, but he is supporting a theory that many major psychological associations have rejected or disapproved. I think that could be part of the criticism. CardinalDan (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the ridiculousness of adding an identical criticism section to each and every article about a conversion therapist, which would be necessary for consistency if this section is to be retained here in its current form, this section may imply things that are not true, such as that Nicolosi thinks it was a mistake to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Now, I really don't know if that's his position or not, but Wikipedia can't imply that it is without a source. Placing a mention of how homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder in the criticism section implies it is his view that this decision was wrong, and that's a potential problem for BLP. Christian Existentialist (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, saying that Nicolosi is "controversial" in the lead is unnecessary. OK. He is controversial. So what? His being controversial is reasonably well known, and doesn't have to be pointed out, I think. Plus it appears to be unsourced material (what source specifically says he's "controversial?"), which in my view won't do. Christian Existentialist (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"His being controversial is reasonably well known, and doesnt have to be pointed out"? What a ridiculous suggestion. Encyclopaedias are general purpose information tools for everybody, rather than specifically for specialists. Almost everybody knows Obama is president, so should his entry omit that fact? Of course not. The entry needs to at least state the facts that the majority agree on, including brief references to what is common knowledge, for the benefit of those who are completely unfamiliar. 58.173.1.236 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)aussiewithcamera

It's pretty clear that what's happening here is a single person, who is notably a victim of this treatment, defending and censoring criticisms on this page. I don't think that's a proper and neutral way of writing an encyclopedia article. The entire thing sounds like a PR report on how fabulous conversion therapy is. Pretty frightening stuff. I hope we can correct the bias.. And hopefully inform more people about how harmful this is before they become victims, as well. 84.154.229.59 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statements about me are wrong and offensive. I have never undergone therapy with Dr. Nicolosi or anybody else and I am not a "victim." Criticism sections do not belong in articles about living people, and the reasons I gave for removing them from this article stand. Christian Existentialist (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I thought the purpose of this article was to criticize the character in question.... perhaps a new article titled "people who don't like this guy" can be made? It's not his PR team I am worried about, its the lgbt teams that scour the internet looking for things to be outraged at.75.217.128.199 (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Reverted

Since the editor who is trying to push through major changes here without consensus has not replied to any of the reasons I have given for reverting them, it appears that he or she has no valid arguments to make. I have therefore reverted most of the changes again (although I have accepted one minor rewording; I agree it is more neutral). I have also removed the Dr. Phil Show section, which is a likely violation of the BLP policy. Unsourced and negative material of this kind is not appropriate. Christian Existentialist (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Frightening censorship going on here. One guy, a Christian Existentialist who has undergone Nicolosi's treatments, shouldn't be in charge of this article. I'll revert more things as necessary. 84.154.229.59 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of improvement

A very poor article by any standards. As this is a biography article, the main subject should be the person. However, this page mainly delivers a much too detailed summary about his published work and since the removal of anything critical concerning the publications, it reads like a commercial presentation to his books from his publisher. I think it needs a complete rewrite. 4jhop (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you go right ahead and rewrite it then. Good luck on finding anything worth reporting about Nicolosi's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Somebody added a criticism section saying, "see for example article "Noam chomsky"/criticism-section there is so long, it warrants a separate main article, which is linked to from there." My reply: this is not the Noam Chomsky article. Also, these articles are not similar in any way. The criticism that has been added here isn't even about Nicolosi, so obviously what has been done with the Chomsky article is in no way a model for this one. Christian Existentialist (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I came here via Recent Changes Patrol and read the talkpage in its entirety. Currently, there is no consensus for deleting it. Therefore, it must be kept until consensus is found. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out the problems with this section months ago. Including it implies that Nicolosi thinks that homosexuality should not have been declassified as a mental illness. That is not appropriate because there's nothing here that says he thinks homosexuality is a mental illness, and I don't know that he even believes this. Christian Existentialist (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresenting somebody's views this way is wrong whether it is done directly or by implication, and so that section poses a likely problem for the policy about living people. Removing it is not vandalism. Christian Existentialist (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

~~I noticed this dispute on AIV. I wonder if there's some neutral version of the article you two can agree on for now? Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)~~ Actually, I'm unconvinced this section, as it was written in the last revision, actually implies any views to the subject of the page. It's a criticism section, and it's labeled as such. If I'm missing it, please point out to me what section is misattributing. I'm going to restore it for now. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Placing a section named "criticism" in an article about somebody implies that it is criticism of him personally. That is true even though nothing in this "criticism" section even mentions Nicolosi himself. To present the fact that homosexuality has been declassified as a mental illness as criticism of Nicolosi obviously does imply that he thinks homosexuality is a mental illness, otherwise how could it be relevant? Yet Nicolosi is never on record as saying that homosexuality is a mental illness, so there is a misrepresentation of his views here even though it is not done directly. This poses a potential problem for the living persons policy. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with criticizing someone. If your argument is that's the problem then we should be very clear about that. There would be a problem if the section misattributed views to the individual, which is what I originally understood you to be saying. After reading it though, I don't see any indication of that.

I don't read the section to imply the large leaps necessary to reach your reading, but if there's any risk of confusion, instead of removing the whole thing, it is much easier to put in a line that says he's not on record as saying it's a mental illness. There's two other paragraphs in the criticism section that are not addressed by your concern, and while I don't think there's any indication of misattribution, I've removed the APA's "homosexuality is not an illness" part becasue I don't see its immediate relvance. Although, I must say, people don't usually use "therapies" in a "clinical" setting to fix "conditions" unless they consider them something like an illness. Shadowjams (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You really did not seem to understand my point. I never said there was a problem with criticizing someone. I said there was a problem with a "criticism" section that criticises views Nicolosi is not on record as holding, as that implies that he does in fact hold them. I am sorry if you cannot see the problem, but it is a serious one. I think I could live with the rest of the criticism section (though I don't regard it as necessary or even appropriate), but not with the misrepresentation of Nicolosi implied by that sentence. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To first say that homosexuality is not a mental illness and then say that Nicolosi is not on record as saying it is would look silly. It would also be original research, and it wouldn't solve anything. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that particular paragraph is not in the article now. I'll try to use the RFC header section for talk related to the broader issue of criticism sections, and this section for the specific issue of misattribution.

It would only be original research if we couldn't find a source for it. And if it's not the case, then that undercuts any misattribution worries. Shadowjams (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the paragraph. I will repeat that explaining that homosexuality is not now regarded as a mental illness is both unnecessary and actively misleading unless there is some proof that Nicolosi actually does regard homosexuality as a mental illness. You would need to find direct evidence that he has actually said that before the paragraph could even begin to be justified. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So let's do a little dictionary-research about 'views he does not hold'... Webster's dictionary: therapy="therapeutic treatment especially of bodily, mental, or behavioral disorder" So would you be OK with including that he believes its a disorder rather than an illness ? Seb az86556 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Any statements about what Nicolosi thinks need to come from sources that specifically discuss and explain what he thinks. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a quote in the article by him where he himself uses the word disorder... Seb az86556 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That does not contradict what I said. There's nothing in the article that specifically states Nicolosi does regard homosexuality as a disorder. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Soo explain this quote then:

Nicolosi wrote, "...the psychiatric profession has created an internal inconsistency when it categorizes gender-identity disorder as a psychiatric illness while labeling the adult outcome (homosexuality) as normal."

Seb az86556 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements about what somebody thinks cannot be based on out of context quotations. You may see a particular implication there (eg, that homosexuality is a disorder), but that does not mean that that was what Nicolosi meant. You would have to look at the original source to get a sense of the context. That is the only responsible thing to do. Christian Existentialist (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So pray-tell: Why does he write books that contain the word therapy in their titles? That's not simply a rhetorical question, I would really like to know why someone would write therapy-books when there is no disorder. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Look up the source and justify it on the source. Your assumptions about why Nicolosi uses a particular title are not a basis for adding something to the article; that's original research. Christian Existentialist (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The book is the source. Three books, in fact. He wrote the title. He chose the words. I am assuming he has a command of the English language. He knows what therapy means. If he does not, I would like to know where he won his doctorate. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not acceptable. What you are proposing is original research - please review that policy, as you appear not to understand it. You need a direct statement by Nicolosi that he regards homosexuality as a disorder or illness. Nothing else will do. Christian Existentialist (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is never a sentence in this article that says he believes homosexuality is an illness. There are three parts to your argument.

First, that someone would imply that from the inclusion of the fact that the APA and DSM do not consider it a disorder. Those two facts are in context too with other discussions of the therapy. They don't do therapy because they don't consider it a disorder.

Second, that, if someone were to make that conclusion, the article subject would disagree with it. There's no direct evidence either way on this.

Third, that it's an unfair characterization. All considering, it might be reasonable to say that he treats it like a disorder (which it never says) even if the subject disagrees, because of other things he's said and books he's written. I'm reminded of the Bill O'Reilly controversy. O'Reilly runs away from the word "conservative" to describe his political beliefs, but, as the RfC on that topic concluded, it's not unfair to mention that he is considered a conservative.

With all of this context, it's very reasonable to read that one sentence as many things other than what you're worried about. Shadowjams (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's totally unconvincing. You have simply evaded the point I made. It's perfectly obvious that the APA's position can be "criticism" of Nicolosi (which is implied by its position here) only if he disagrees with it. If there is no direct evidence about what Nicolosi thinks on this issue, then there can't be a statement that regards homosexuality as a disorder. There needs to be direct evidence taken from an appropriate source that specifically says Nicolosi considers homosexuality a disorder or illness. To state that he regards it as an illness without such a source is a violation of living persons policy, and note that such violations can be removed any number of times, that this over-rides consensus and that the three revert rule does not apply in such cases. Christian Existentialist (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should a criticism-section be included in an article on Joseph Nicolosi, living person and advocate of "reparative therapy" to cure/revert homosexuality?

Requesting user came to this dispute via Recent Changes Patrol and has no stake in the article, but nonetheless believes the issue at hand is important enough to warrant wider attention: Some users believe that an article on Joseph Nicolosi (living person), an advocate of "reparative therapy" to cure/revert homosexuality, should include a "criticism"-section. Others believe that criticism-sections for living persons violate BLP-policies. Thank you! Seb az86556 (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The article should not include this "criticism" section, which is not even about Nicolosi and effectively misrepresents his views. Note that I do not believe that all criticism sections necessarily violate living persons policy, but this one is very dubious. Christian Existentialist (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It's appropriate here. This individual's WP:notability rests on a very specific area of study. Relevant criticisms of that area of study/methods are regularly relevant (e.g., Steven Spielberg, Søren Kierkegaard (featured article), David Boies, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (which has its own criticism page), Nina Kulagina, Semir Osmanagić, E. O. Wilson). This section is short and it's cited. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Agree with Shadowjams. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - Section is clearly appropriate and necessary. Born Gay (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Qualified keep - Having thought about this, and seen some of the other comments here, I am changing my keep to a qualified keep. The criticism does need to be here, but it doesn't have to necessarily be kept in a separate criticism section, rather than integrated into other parts of the article. Born Gay (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No - There isn't any actual criticism in the criticism section. There is a statement from the APA that is meant to imply criticism, but the APA hasn't criticized Nicolosi, and he continues to publish. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You are reading a (by now) watered-down version of said section. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This is probably my fault? I'm not entirely familiar with reverting things, and only wanted to bring it back before knowledge of its existence was lost. I think it is very, very important for people who are reading this page to understand that there is more than one side to this topic in academia. Thanks for running this vote. 00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Qualified keep - the current section is about general criticism of Conversion therapy or Reparative therapy, and while Nicolosi is included in this, it is not about him or his views specifically. A criticism section is fine, as his views/approach is controversial, but it should be about his views. Mish (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Qualified keep I agree that criticism of a living person's writing and public statements is perfectly good form, but as others have said, none of the stuff here is directly responding to Nicolosi's work, only to his field in general. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicolosi's actual views

There have been repeated claims here that Nicolosi regards homosexuality as an illness or disorder. It seems to me that the way this has been argued employs original research (eg, arguing that Nicolosi must think this because the word "therapy" is used in his books) and that it is not acceptable for a living persons article. A quotation from one of Nicolosi's books (A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality) has also been used to argue this, even though it is only an out of context quotation that does not say either that homosexuality is a disorder or that it is not, but leaves the issue open. For the record, the chapter of that book the quotation was taken from does not argue that homosexuality is a disorder or an illness. It includes a section called What is a Psychiatric Disorder, Anyway, on pages 173 and 174. Rather than arguing that homosexuality is a disorder, it states that there are no clear criteria for what is a disorder and what is not. Nicolosi does not argue that homosexuality is a disorder anywhere in that chapter, what he actually states is, "the psychiatric profession remains unable to formulate a consistent concept of disorder (page 175), which is a totally different statement. Christian Existentialist (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And just to repeat: stating that Nicolosi considers homosexuality an illness or disorder is a violation of the living persons policy if it has no source. Original research is not acceptable. I will remove any such violation from the article. Christian Existentialist (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I never made that claim, and the article never has either. You've argued that it's implied by the simple inclusion of the fact that the most psychological organizations unclassified homosexuality as a disorder in the 1970s. That's a leap of logic I think is unfounded. Shadowjams (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You've said it's clear that he does not think homosexuality's a disorder. Others argued that it's plausible that he does regard it as a disorder, or at least something to be remedied. Seb has given a few quotes to imply that he does call it a disorder. None of them actually say that outright, although, it's a plausible reading, but, as you point out, not the only one. No one has misattributed any views, only argued over plausible interpretations of what has been cited above.

What's important though is that none of this is in the article right now. The only thing prompting this in the first place was your claim that mentioning that homosexuality's not widely recognized as a disorder implies that he thinks it is. As I've discussed at length above, that is not a necessary, or even a likely, conclusion a reader would make. Shadowjams (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fair enough" and "Exactly." Naturally, I do think my interpretation is the only correct one based on what I explained, but if other readers happen to come to a different conclusion after reading this article in combination with the criticism-section, then so be it. Wikipedia should leave that to its readers and give them precisely that freedom. That -- is what NPOV implies, and we shouldn't try to "spoon-feed" people by giving them articles in the spirit of "here's what you're supposed to think." I hope this settles the issue now. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by DarlieB

DarlieB changed this article to state that reparative therapy is "discredited." That was supported by the new report from the American Psychological Association, but it does not say that reparative therapy and other new approaches to changing homosexuality are discredited. It says that there is not enough evidence to tell whether they work or not. DarlieB also removed the fact that Nicolosi has based his conclusions about homosexuality on his clinical experience, but that was properly sourced; it was based on Nicolosi's books, and they should be an acceptable source here. Please do not change this article back to the DarlieB version, because that is highly misleading. Christian Existentialist (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article violates BLP policy and needs to be stubbified

I have been looking at Wikipedia policy about living people, and I am convinced that this article does not meet that policy. The policy states that, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." This article is not based upon secondary sources; it is based upon primary sources, and it is not proper to base an article mainly on these. I am therefore going to reduce the article to a stub. Atitika (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to enactment of new California law banning the practice of reparative aka conversion therapy

This is an addition of fact, germane because of the highly controversial nature of the work this man is known for, and referenced as such.Mykstor (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems

Problems with the current state of the article include:

Reparative therapy, is mentioned in the lede, but not in the body
There is no mention in the article that conversion therapy, in general, and reparative therapy, in particular, are generally considered discredited, and were generally considered discredited while Nicolosi was alive. (Obviously, his recommended therapy being discredited after his death has little place in his article; however, the fact that it was considered discredited shortly after being proposed is relevant to his article.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Nicolosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Joseph Nicolosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of media appearances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My edit was removed by @Freeknowledgecreator: because apparently media appearances do not warrant it's own section. However as noted here on the talk page, the user has routinely removed other users edits to the Nicolosi's biography, and instructed users to create additional sections. Hence, a media appearances section seems completely appropriate. I also acted on the fact that there are other Nicolosi media appearances, such as this interview on the BBC and other mainstream networks, which were notable discussions in the media (edit: I meant to say here that other appearances could be added to the section later). I think a feature in a prominent Stephen Fry documentary is a notable media appearance. I am not sure why a careful edit, with a clear citation including timestamps should be removed. Then I have to come to the talk page and put my case forward as to avoid an edit war. This seems much more like personal interpretation on part of the user without any real wikipedia rule being cited. I notice freeknowledgecreator has done several of these reversals, and while sometimes appropriate, there is absolutely no criteria provided for which edits are being removed. Thank you --Sxologist (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said when I removed it, "I see no reason why a single media appearance is of such great importance that it merits an entire section of the article". I still don't. Plenty of people notable enough to have articles written about them do media appearances. Should articles about notable people have separate sections for each and every media appearance that they do? Most people would say no. What is so special about one particular media appearance by one particular person (Nicolosi) that it deserves a whole section of an article? And why go into minute detail about who said exactly what during that media appearance? There's no encyclopedic justification for it. The relevant rule is WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Personally I would simply have added a "see also" link to Stephen Fry: Out There and left it at that. You appear to be confused when you say, "I also acted on the fact that there are other Nicolosi media appearances, such as this interview on the BBC and other mainstream networks, which were notable discussions in the media at the time"; "notable" in Wikipedia terms means that a topic merits a dedicated article. See WP:NOTE. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of notable and sometimes controversial figures is included on most wikipedia articles. Should we go and remove all the media coverage and documentary coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church from their wikipedia page? Should we take off the fact that Louis Theroux did a documentary about them? Fry's segment of the documentary was specifically about reparative therapy and Joseph Nicolosi. The quote can certainly be reduced in size, for example, the quote about teenagers might be considered long. However, in the wider context of this article and the APA's condemnation of reparative therapy with teenagers brought into therapy by their parents, and are not technically consenting, I think it deserves a mention. I also made no such mention of 'notability' in Wikipedia terms, I simply said "notable", which in the context of this article would rely more on due weight. Fry does not hold a minority view, and he wasn't particularly confrontational in the interview either. Considering Nicolosi's prominence in the reparative therapy 'community' and the media, this article is extremely brief. --Sxologist (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not media coverage of someone, but a media appearance by that person. It's not the same thing. There is normally no reason why a media appearance that someone does should be mentioned in an article about that person unless that appearance is of outstanding importance. The shortness of the article is unsurprising and unlikely to change, given that there is very little about Nicolosi that actually deserves mention in an article. What is there about Nicolosi to report other than his support for conversion therapy? The shortness of the article is not an excuse for cramming it full of unencyclopedic trivia such as the precise details of who said what during a single media appearance: that's exactly the kind of material that fails the test of WP:PROPORTION. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, your interpretation of what is 'outstanding importance' seems odd considering Stephen Fry's prominence. Could you link me the wikipedia rule that all quotes/appearances must be about something or from a 'source' of outstanding importance? (EDIT: it appears you removed the words 'outstanding importance' from your response). WP:PROPORTION quite clearly says multiple views on a topic should be covered, but those with a very minority view or making an extraordinary claim should be left out. That doesn't seem enough to justify deleting this section. This is the coverage of Nicolosi in a mainstream and prominent documentary, and largely deals with direct quotes. --Sxologist (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The relevant rule is WP:PROPORTION, as already noted. What it states is, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It does not say that "multiple views on a topic should be covered, but those with a very minority view or making an extraordinary claim should be left out". You are simply confused. Maybe you are confusing WP:PROPORTION with WP:FALSEBALANCE, a different section of the overall WP:NPOV policy. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You do realise there was nothing stopping you from adding media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi? If anything, Nicolosi holds the minority viewpoint and thus inclusion of other opinions on him and his work is justified. Regardless, my edit was quite clearly not dealing with the consensus on the pros/cons of the work carried out by Nicolosi, so what point are you trying to make? I have already said we can cut down the quote. The edits is of a prominent feature in a Stephen Fry documentary is worthy of mention. Given you were warned by @EdChem: for a disruptive edit for previously removing large swathes of text on the Joseph Nicolosi article, I have trouble simply accepting your argument. I am going to wait for another editor to chime in as there is no conclusion being reached here. Edit: you also asked why Nicolosi’s article shouldn’t be as brief as it is? For starters, this article "has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale." Of course it needs work. Further, Nicolosi is considered one of the godfathers of a highly controversial practice, and his work also highly influenced the work of therapists around the world today. He has a lot more coverage, (and views) that are covered in media, books and academia than this article covers. There are longer Wiki articles covering largely unnoticed psychologists. Sxologist (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? What gave you the idea that I would want to add "media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi"? Do you assume that I support Nicolosi's views simply because I'm a Christian? That seems incredibly presumptuous, and your assumption is, in any case, wrong. I do not recall ever having expressed any opinion of Nicolosi's work on Wikipedia, and I certainly have no interest in adding material that would portray it in a flattering light. I believe in writing articles in accord with WP:NPOV. The problem with your addition, in my view, is that it goes into greatly excessive detail about a relatively minor subject; whether it portrays Nicolosi in a positive or a negative light is neither here nor there.

As for "what point are you trying to make": the point, which should have been obvious, was that you appear to be confused about what WP:PROPORTION actually states. You stated above that it, "quite clearly says multiple views on a topic should be covered, but those with a very minority view or making an extraordinary claim should be left out". It doesn't. You are simply wrong about that. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE that explains that minority views should be excluded, not WP:PROPORTION, which deals with an entirely different issue. Your rude comment above simply looks like a refusal on your part to admit that you are mistaken about what WP:PROPORTION is actually concerned with. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I made no assumptions about your beliefs, and your faith is news to me (and irrelevant). I was deferring until additional editors could provide answers, but you've assumed some kind of religious attack which warrants a response. You said that adding mention of an interview with Nicolosi is undue weight, and I said that it could easily be remedied by adding a contrary POV. But, arguing that Nicolosi's appearance in a rather notable interview he gave is somehow undue weight or bias that appears to miss the whole point of the policy. You also keep referring to my earlier misread of the WP:PROPORTION policy. I kindly remind you that you said sources must have "outstanding importance", so while I may be guilty of a mistaken misread, you also had your own interpretations (an entirely made up rule?). If I misread one area of one policy, that doesn't make you correct. I note you were warned for removing content previously, and, you also said this article should stay the same size/scope despite the fact that it has a "Start-Class" on the quality scale. For those reasons, I will wait for other editors perspective. I'm not going to quibble over this any more. --Sxologist (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You commented, "You do realise there was nothing stopping you from adding media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi?" The question assumes I would want to add "media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi". You are wrong. I don't. Baseless accusations are not civil. An overly detailed discussion of a single minor media appearance is excessive detail, per WP:PROPORTION, and "adding a contrary POV" would simply worsen the problem further, rather than making excessive detail from a single interview somehow appropriate. The rest of your comment is just as mistaken. I did not say that "sources must have "outstanding importance"; I stated that, "There is normally no reason why a media appearance that someone does should be mentioned in an article about that person unless that appearance is of outstanding importance", which is completely different. You attribute to me the view that, the "article should stay the same size/scope". Nope. I simply noted that there is little to report about Nicolosi's life or work, so anyone who wants to expand the article responsibly is going to find it very difficult. The absence of significant discussions of Nicolosi's life doesn't justify stuffing the article full of trivia from one interview. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's slight presumption. I said that as a perceived solution to undue weight, but upon reading the policy that wouldn't be suitable. Secondly, its a start-class article which quite clearly states that it is an article that it "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." On this topic, you stated that it shouldn't be expanded because "there is very little about Nicolosi that actually deserves mention in an article". Really? According to who exactly? Nicolosi is perhaps the most notable conversion therapist, and subsequently received the most coverage in media and academic journals and critiques. Further, he was also publicly accused of plagiarism by Elizabeth Moberly in both academic journals and in letters to the editor of major newspapers. Consider the amount of controversy that gets included on the Exodus International wiki including of the group and it's leaders. Should we go and delete all of those because of undue weight and proportion? Finally, I also stated that my edit could be cut down, for example, by simply shortening it to "Nicolosi stated that 60% of his patients were teenagers", however the whole quote in question quite clearly provided an insight into his beliefs. The fact you think the mentioning of a Stephen Fry documentary as an irrelevant detail is your own interpretation. Given your previous warning, you clearly have an interest in keeping this article as narrow as possible, in contrast with the start-class designation. Sxologist (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I never stated that the article should not be expanded. I already explained that to you clearly. I also did not say that "mentioning of a Stephen Fry documentary" is "an irrelevant detail" (it is clearly excessive detail, but that is different from it being irrelevant, as if it were not about the article's topic). Ignoring what I actually say and attributing to me views that I do not hold is not constructive. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

At least we are now both guilty of presuming the others views. My apologies there. Sxologist (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, Apart from the atrocious sourcing and the quote-mining, we have the issue of WP:UNDUE. The criteria here are referenced in WP:PROFRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO, WP:RS. I agree with Freeknowledgecreator's removal. You need third-party sources that discuss the interview to demonstrate its significance and the takeaways that independent reviewers drew from it, not some random editor's personal observations. Guy (help!) 09:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I did indicate that the edit I made could be adjusted, however it was removed on the presumption that it should not be included altogether, not because of an issue with the citation. It can easily be cited back to a New York Times article which states he claimed 60% of his patients were teenagers. Further, did I really quote mine? It wasn't out of context, it was in the context of their interview. Sxologist (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. That requires independent sourcing. We're not talking here about the claim that X% of his patients were teenagers, we're talking about "media appearances". Guy (help!) 09:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am only arguing for it's inclusion in general, quote or without quote? The NYT article merely confirmed the interview occurred. And why exactly would we need the the takeaways from independent reviewers? This isn't the page about the documentary and it's reception. I included it because it was about Joseph Nicolosi and his views. --Sxologist (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, because WP:NOR. We don't get to be the arbiters of what should be drawn from any primary source. Guy (help!) 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. My broader question is asking if it is acceptable to even include one or two sentences stating that he appeared in an interview in a Stephen Fry documentary, with a secondary source like BBC or NYTimes. No quotes. And where should this fit? Sxologist (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, BBC is not a secondary source (Fry works for the BBC and they broadcast the interview). I have no opinion either way on whether a single sentence mention based on the NYT source would be apporopriate. Guy (help!) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Just adding he had been interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, Larry King and Stephen Fry. --Sxologist (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Factual misinformation

OP BLOCKED

Freeknowledgecreator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Skoojal. Guy (help!) 10:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article currently states the following:

"From 2013, protests were raised in Spain over the sale of three of Nicolosi's books: I Want to Stop Being Gay, How to Prevent Homosexuality and Gender Confusion in Childhood."

The quoted statement contains a serious factual error. It is cited to an article in The Guardian, which can be seen here, but the article in question is at best misleading. Nicolosi never wrote books with the titles mentioned. A careful internet search would show that they do not exist. There are no records in libraries or bibliographies of them ever having existed, and they cannot be ordered for sale anywhere. As the "Publications" section states, Nicolosi's four books are Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Healing Homosexuality, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, and Shame and Attachment Loss. I will remove the factual error from the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe those are English translations of the titles his books were released under in Spanish: see here where he lists Cómo prevenir la homosexualidad and Quiero Dejar De Ser Homosexual and here for the GBooks listing of La confusión de género en la infancia. Cheers, gnu57 04:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- That is possibly correct. But even if it is correct, it is misleading for the author of that article in The Guardian to give those titles (I Want to Stop Being Gay, How to Prevent Homosexuality and Gender Confusion in Childhood) as if Nicolosi actually wrote books in English with those titles, which he did not. The other possibility is that the author of the Guardian article is simply wrong in his facts. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  - The titles are those under which the books were sold in Spain, and the titles under which the sordid tomes were banished from the shelves. There is no possibility of being misled. If Nicolosi chose to give his essays in English less provocative or more anodyne titles than the Spanish editions, that is his concern. The titles cited in the Guardian are accurate, and it is not editors' place to quibble with them and unilaterally remove the information. GPinkerton (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    - The books were obviously sold in Spain under Spanish titles. "I Want to Stop Being Gay, How to Prevent Homosexuality and Gender Confusion in Childhood" are English titles. Including them in the article is misleading in that it implies that Nicolosi actually wrote English-language books with those titles. There is no reason for the article to give a Guardian author's English translations of the titles that Nicolosi's books were released under in Spanish - we should simply give the actual, Spanish-language titles. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      - There is absolutely no point in adding untranslated Spanish titles to Wikipedia when we have the Spanish titles and the translations of the titles already reported by unimpeachable sources. What would be the benefit to the reader of removing the translations? GPinkerton (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        The benefit is that we do not misinform the reader by suggesting that Nicolosi actually wrote English-language books with the titles mentioned ("I Want to Stop Being Gay", etc). For the purposes of this article, it is enough to note that there were protests in Spain against the sale of some of Nicolosi's books. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        There is no danger of that, although I don't think it's misinformed. Nicolosi wrote the books, the titles reflect the content. He obviously chose his English titles poorly. The books Nicolosi wrote needs to be mentioned. I can't think why you object to that ... GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        It obviously is entirely possible that the reader will be misinformed to think that Nicolosi actually wrote a book in English called I Want to Stop Being Gay. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        It is possible, but if they read the Wikipedia article as written here, their confusion will be be allayed, since this wording is unambiguous. He wrote the books. Whether he chose their Spanish titles is not mentioned either in this article or in the article cited. You can not say otherwise, I presume. GPinkerton (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional sources for the article

There are at least two reliable sources to be hopefully integrated in the article:

an interview of Dr. Nicolosi to the Zenit News Agency (here)
a short biography published on the Catholic Social Science Review - Philosophy Center (here) ,mentioning a presentation held by Dr Nicolosi at the John Paul Institute for Marriage and the Family at the Vatican.

His PhD thesis/dissertation at the California School of Professional Psichology isn't included on his bibliography on Worldcat and it can't be easily find on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.68.43 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Added information

Beth Timken, in regard to the information that you added here, I would suggest, if you believe the information warrants inclusion in the article at all, that you place it in a new section. It does not belong in a section titled "Biography" because it is not about Nicolosi's biography at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Massive removal of content

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you just responded to Beth Timken's addition / reordering in this article (which added 817 bytes) by removing 6,307 bytes of long-standing text. Would you please explain your actions? Policy on fringe topics like conversion therapy mandates that the mainstream view be presented. EdChem (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above. It belongs in a different section, not a section titled "Biography", since it isn't about Nicolosi's life. Anyone should feel free to start a new section and put the information there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is JzG restoring it eight months ago, this is not new text. You have removed something like 8 times as much text as Beth Timken added. If you know full well that it belongs in the article, removing it is deliberate misconduct. Feel free to put it back, immediately, and then re-structure the article if you feel it is needed, or I will revert you per BRD and suggest you discuss your proposals. Your removal is not justified under policy. EdChem (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to be hysterical, rude, or insulting ("deliberate misconduct"). I will put it in a different section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making the edit that you should have in the first place. EdChem (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Translations... oh dear

I think someone needs to add translation notices to the foreign versions of this article. For example, the Arabic article appears to be a promotional page of Nicolosi linking to translated NARTH pages and says nothing of the mainstream view of reparative therapy. Sxologist (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if other wikis have translation tags like we do. But the good news is that as the largest Wikipedia and the one in academia's lingua franca, our content here often gets translated and copied to other Wikipedias. You also are able to edit there. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)