Talk:Joseph Nicolosi

Merge with Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Since there is consensus for this proposal, I've redirected the article here (diff [1]). Any blocked sock content that is deemed worthy of publication can be added to this article as you see fit. buidhe 01:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was created by a recently banned sock-puppet and the book, the discredited ideas of one man, is longer than the man's article. What remains notable should go under one article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I don't disagree, but I think this should probably be the target as it wasn't his only book. Guy (help!) 20:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG That's what I'm proposing! Merge the book(s) into the man. GPinkerton (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is that book even notable? Any reason to not just AfD it, without a redirect? Doesn't look like it qualifies for a G5 speedy, unlike some of User:Skoojal's other creations. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nfitz, It is notable, primarily because Amazon banned it. But is it independently notable? I'd say not. Guy (help!) 09:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

* Support merging the two articles. Although I abhor the book's content and the damage I've seen the theory and its implementation cause to so many men, those are my personal thoughts & feelings. Looking at this issue objectively as possible, I must conclude that the book is notable enough that we should cover it in the article about the author. ¶ Kudos to the Wikipedians who investigated the issue and determined that FreeKnowledgeCreator (what a name!) is/was a socky.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support merging the book into the man. No need for WP:FORKs when relating fringe theories. And to all here: Freeknowledgecreator/Skoojal worked on various articles related to homosexuality, especially books about homosexuality. I just discovered and read the ANI on him which details some of his subtle POV pushing/WP:SEALIONing. This fits well with my experience; he was always overly sympathetic to poorly sourced material which implied that sexual orientation was controlled by social influences. Definitely keep an eye out for NPOV in articles he's substantially edited. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, that sounds about right. But based on this edit by one of his old sockpuppets, he claims to have been victim of reparative therapy and that he has a vendetta against the freudian theories. Perhaps he holds some deep seated sympathy towards such theories and has relapsed in his belief about it, or he merely wanted to pretend he hated freudian theories to add a false sense of credibility to edits. Another one of his sockpuppets was titled 'Born Gay' which to me sounds like someone putting on a mask so they won't be questioned... given his editing history and all. --Sxologist (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, I cannot recall any gay person I know who has ever called themselves "a homosexual". Only rarely have I heard them say "I am homosexual". It is very sad reading - but Wikipedia is not therapy. Guy (help!) 21:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG based on the ANI on him, he once wrote: “for the record, I do not now, and nor have I ever, believed that I was 'born gay' - my actual views on that topic are about the exact opposite of what my user name would suggest". The intent of the sock was to present a "new, more politically correct guise (calling myself "Born Gay", and so forth), [so that] no one would be smart enough to realize who I was," clearly an intent to deceive and to advance an agenda. Sxologist (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - or even simply redirect. Nfitz (talk) 13:02, 9 June 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.

First sentence of article

The first sentence of this article is:

Joseph Nicolosi (January 24, 1947 – March 8, 2017) was an American clinical psychologist who advocated and practised "reparative therapy", a form of the pseudoscientific treatment of conversion therapy that he claimed could help people overcome or mitigate their homosexual desires and replace them with heterosexual ones.

I had edited the sentence to read:

Joseph Nicolosi (January 24, 1947 – March 8, 2017) was an American clinical psychologist who advocated and practised "reparative therapy", a form of conversion therapy that he claimed could help people overcome or mitigate their homosexual desires and replace them with heterosexual ones.

Nfitz made a good faith removal of my edit (diff), stating, "not sure why is trying to remove same text that banned sockpuppets tried to remove". Two points: (1) I edited the sentence for this reason, as I stated in my edit note: "grammar/usage - clarity of expression". This part of the sentence: "a form of the pseudoscientific treatment of conversion therapy" is (a) duplicative and unnecessary, since the last sentence of the first paragraph emphasizes the pseudoscientific nature of conversion therapies, including "reparative therapy" (as does the wikilinked conversion therapy article); and (b) the sentence is not clear and concise. To avoid back-and-forth edits, I will leave the sentence as is, although I encourage another editor to edit it to make it more clear and concise. ¶ Along with other editors, I had many discussions with FreeKnowledgeCreator (the sockpuppet) about his attempts to sanitize Nicolosi's book (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality) and present it as acceptable theory. I have no interest whatsoever in minimizing the harmful nature of conversion therapies.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Mark, I will give it a look when I have some time but grammatically speaking, you are correct. Sxologist (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I seek attention about this changes by User:Sxologist. 116.58.201.111 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I replied to both of your complaints you may on two different administrator noticeboards - it's really not a good look when you escalate things that fast simply because I reverted your low-grade edits. I'll copy my main points here too: First, you removed the required WP:FRINGE notices from Medical Associations, made drastic edits to a page that are not required, used primary/original sources instead of reputable secondary ones, added a fringe source (Joseph Nicolosi). You could learn how to use Wikipedia – you could actually get some commentary on Nicolosi's views from the Bailey 2016 review linked in the article, because that's a reputable secondary source. Will you though? Sxologist (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: what do you think. Sxologist (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good revert. You are right to follow WP:FRINGE. Just be careful about throwing around the term "vandalism" - it does not apply to WP:PROFRINGE POV pushing. See WP:NOTVAND. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Can everyone please discuss and give me your opinions about my edits, here is a change, you can also inqure them by checking page history. Love and regards to all. 116.58.200.180 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a case where you'd have to make a case for those edits; I'm not seeing much point to them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to add these edits unless you can make a strong case for them. Your additions to this article are overly detailed and give too much credence to WP:FRINGE ideas. Dustytumble (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits failed WP:MEDRS standards. There are actual requirements for what you include on Wikipedia. By the way, I see a Bengali version of the Nicolosi article was created in the past two days – at the same time as your edits – featuring only praise. You do a disservice to people in Bangladesh when you promote such pseudoscience. A recent study in 2020 examined longitudinal datasets and showed no correlation between absent fatherism and male homosexuality. That alone, discredits Nicolosi's entire theory (although there was already a huge volume of research showing the whole theory is nonsense, namely that gay men in Scandanavia report warmer fathers than straight men do, and that in Samoa there is no dislike for feminine boys who become fa'afafine). It's fine that you think you've found refuge in Nicolosi's book, but there's no actual evidence for it – only evidence against. Sxologist (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, two Scandinavian studies alone about absentee fathers aren't enough debunk a theory. There should be more studies replicating the same results in very different cultures - say, United States, Japan or Brazil. As for the Samoan study, anthropological studies (I'm assuming its an anthropolical studies - I might be wrong) historically look for the exceptions, not commonolaties. The vast majority of cultures around still reject same-sex relations; it's gradual acceptance is a particularly Western, modern phenomenon. It's also an exception, but a powerful exception it is, fuelled by equally powerful political, social and economical forces.

Furthermore, there is a difference between the neglected child and the rejected child [2] - the reparative therapy types defend that an angry, rejecting father is one of the key etiological features of the development of same-sex attraction. And this particular configuration isn't fixed on sex. An acquaintance of mine had a very close, loving father - assuming a role normally took by women - and a very demanding, cruel mother. By his own account that was a major influence on him being gay. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Musicaindustrial: If one proposes a theory (or, more accurately, a hypothesis), the burden of proof is on the person who proposed the theory, not the other way around. Having made that point, there are many more than two studies debunking the "parent type" hypotheses. ¶ You wrote, "the vast majority of cultures around still reject same-sex relations ...." If your speculation is accurate, i.e., even if it is supported by citations to reliable sources, what is your point? For millennia, "the vast majority of cultures around still considered slavery to be an acceptable, morally justified practice." Did that mean slavery is humane? ¶ Finally, anecdotal accounts can help illustrate theories that enjoy substantial empirical support, but by themselves anecdotes neither prove nor disprove a theory or hypothesis. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"it's gradual acceptance is a particularly Western, modern phenomenon"

It's actually the contrary to your claim: it was accepted in Asia in the past until Western Christian ideas spread to Asia. See Homosexuality in Japan or Homosexuality in India, for example. Nakonana (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Publications / bibliography

Pinging @Crossroads: and @Markworthen: what do you think about the section of Nicolosi's publications? I don't really know if WP:FRINGE applies here, but I believe they may have been added by our favourite now-banned sockpuppet. I'm not really in the business of silencing silly opinions I don't agree with, but Nicolosi didn't use the scientific method nor did he hold post at a university or institute. Perhaps it could just be shortened to his books? For example, the meta analysis is published in Psychological Reports (a pay-to-publish journal that published Paul Cameron). What do you think? Side note: I took a look at the patent for "reintegrative therapy" that Nicolosi filed with his son before his death, and the diagrams are nothing short of hilarious (and sad). See here, here, and here. I really don't understand the American system, you can file any old pseudoscience as a medical treatment. Sxologist (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, homosexuality can be cured by making your bar graphs look like boobs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits (diff). I would leave the bibliography as it is. Psychological Reports is not a highly respected journal, but it's legitimate. It is not pay-to-publish. See journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/PRX. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem. Just to comment; I don't know if it still is, but I know it used to charge a 'per page' fee. Either way that's probably not quite pay to publish as you say. Sxologist (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)