The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, NARTH, is upset about changes made to an entry about them in Wikipedia. For those who are not familiar:
Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link.
NARTH is unhappy with what they insist are inaccuracies about them introduced to the article by someone they describe as a “lesbian activist,” Joie de Vivre.
NARTH must have the right to post corrections to an article about itself without having a lesbian activist vandalize the site by reposting inaccurate or distorted statements about the history and goals of NARTH.
We insist that Vivre be prohibited from making future changes on the NARTH site – and that whatever corrections NARTH chooses to post on the site will remain there without being deleted by other anti-NARTH activists.
NARTH’s main contention seems to be over whether or not they consider homosexuality a “psychological disorder;” they say they don’t, Vivre says they do. You can view the recent edit attemtped by Mike Hatfield of NARTH here, with the orginal on the left and his edit on the right. He was distressed that his edits were reverted back each time he tried to change the article himself. For the record, it is not unusual for the organization about which an article is written to be discouraged from writing their own content and certainly unheard of that Wikipedia would block all others except the subject of the article from doing so.
We ask that you permanently ban Joie de Vivre from changing content on the NARTH site and ban any further individuals from posting things that are false or misleading on this site. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
One thing is for sure, before Dr. Nicolosi again uses the term “activist” to call into question another’s motives, he might want to look in the mirror because he and the other members of NARTH joined those ranks long ago.
Update: While on their web site NARTH seems to mostly split hairs on the subject of homosexuality being a psychological disorder, the implication is clear in verbiage such as this where co-founder and past president Charles W. Socarides makes the case in favor:
And even if “social disadvantage” were a legitimate criterion in defining psychiatric disorder, how could homosexuality NOT be a disadvantage? Heterosexuality, in direct contrast, has an innate biological and social usefulness. Therefore, using the “social disadvantage” criterion established by the APA itself, homosexuality would still be a disorder.
NARTH’s website does suggest the gay is a disorder and even quotes Richard Cohen to do so.
“NARTH demands people believe them. People ignore NARTH.”
I’m having that déjà vu thing … all over again!
And so NARTH joins the list of people demanding that others accept a non-standard “definition” of a well understood standard words/concepts because it makes them look bad. Stiff, frankly. I really am Alanchambered out on this matter.
Reality — you don’t have to like it, but you must accept it or run the risk of being considered odd, deranged or a bully.
They really have no clue about Wikipedia; they seem think sending a pompous demand from a bunch of guys with letters after their names will intimidate them – isn’t that special.
Good luck with that Dr. Nicolosi.
On the other hand, NARTH may know that Wikipedia won’t budge, and they may simply be whipping up a story in order to discourage those sympathetic to ex-gay politics from looking to Wikipedia for information.
NARTH is signaling to those who adhere to religious-right political correctness that Wikipedia is dangerously (demonically) neutral, inhabited in part by persons who oppose gender- and sexually-biased language and who are therefore assumed to be same-sex-attracted women — and therefore evil.
Even Conservapedia, the far right’s answer to Wikipedia, agrees that NARTH says homosexuality is a disorder.
By the way, Conservapedia’s page on homosexuality is borrowed heavily from Paul Cameron, CWFA, NARTH, FRC, and Exodus.
Good find Mike, though I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure out if conservapedia.com is a joke or a serious effort. That thing is wrong on so many levels, it’s just plain sad.
I’m just upset that someone beat me to the punch at mentioning conservopedia.
If NARTH is so insistent upon wikipedia making their requested change, would NARTH be willing to likewise purge their site of all references to the phrase that they claim is so misleading?
Dangit! I wanted to be the one to point to Conservapedia… now I find I’m not even an also ran.
Imagine that. Another radical hate group is upset when their actual agenda is laid bare for the public to see.
It’s even worse than portrayed:
We insist that Vivre be prohibited from making future changes on the NARTH site – and that whatever corrections NARTH chooses to post on the site will remain there without being deleted by other anti-NARTH activists.
They’re basically insisting on the right to delete all criticism of themselves.
Wow!
RE:
NARTH Channeling Cohen; he of the pillow beating, racket whacking, and cuddle therapy-ing fame.
The Money quote: “Thus homosexuality can be described as a same-sex attachment disorder (Cohen, 2000, Coming Out Straight).”
Again, Wow!
This statement attribution and connection to Cohen alone is enough to discredit NARTH, if it makes it into the right hands.
NARTH can’t seem to grasp that it’s not THEIR site, but Wikipedia’s site ON them. They have no right to decided what is said about them. It’s like they want any and all criticism of them and their policies to be banned, which is incredibly stupid.
I have no doubt that the “letter” to Wikipedia is a joke, symbol, etc. or else they must be “touched in the head.”
I read the Wikipedia entry on NARTH and it seemed perfectly reasonable to me. It mentioned who and what they were and there was a critique section. Big deal.
NARTH, Exodus and so many other ex-gay groups think nothing of insulting and denigrating gays, lesbian and transgendered people, but become completely unglued with the least bit of criticism directed towards them. If they are so thin skinned, perhaps they should stop going around picking so many fights.
From the Conservapedia webpage cited above: “The Supreme Court recently overturned a Texas law banning sodomy.”
But, when the SS overturned that law, they overturned all of the anti-sodomy laws in the other 49 states and also in the US Territories. Oklahoma did not have an anti-sodomy law; it was a “Crimes Against Nature” law that had same-sex intercourse as one of its subtopics.
It is amusing that the Tulsa, OK news media folks say so and so have been arrested for “sodomy” or has “sodomized” a victim, that no such Oklahoma State law exists regarding “Sodomy.”
NARTH does not want folks to know the truth about what they have been doing for years.
Anyone who is registered with Wikipedia can edit articles started by another person. I have done it. I got a know-i-all person and his gang really upset at me because I felt that they did not have the right to claim the person’s web forum was the “Ultimate Brokeback Mountain Forum.” They did not want others to know that folks like me had a “Brokeback Mountain Book and Movie” discussion forum online.
I did not edit what they wrote; I just added a link to my online forum, too, along with theirs. And, doing so was considered editing.
Okay, I am going to show my ignorance here. As you all know I made sweeping changes to a Wikipedia page/pages that referenced Exodus a while back. I am frequently guilty of not reading directions before I do something, which was the case with me chaning the content of the Exodus Wikipedia page.
I tried following the rules that I could understand after I was nearly banned from Wikipedia. But, I was again reprimanded for even making slight changes. I tried to set up a page about myself that seemed consistent with other pages about heads of national organizations and authors. It was not boastful or anything more than a reference to who I was as the head of Exodus.
I don’t know about the NARTH issue, but I am seriously confused about how to make any changes at Wikipedia. I do not understand how or why I, as the President of Exodus, cannot make changes to my own organizations information. Right now it is all biased info. I know I am biased the other way, but wouldn’t allowing all of the info be fair?
I am willing to follow the rules, but those rules seem to contradict each other and favor one side over another.
Alan, I’m not a Wikipedia expert, though I believe one of our authors has a lot of experience with writing there. It is my understanding that edits made by the organization or person the article covers are not encouraged. However, I believe you could join in the discussion section for that article and give your reasons for certain changes. Much of the time discussion like this has gone on and changes are agreed upon. You could certainly provide input, but no one has the right to demand anything of them.
The reasoning is obvious I think; would anyone be reading about the Berger article incident, etc if NARTH was controlling their own entries? Or the parody incident in your case? I believe if you post something in the discussion you might get better results, at least if it is a factual error.
Alan, dear, for goodness sake you talk too much. Now you are talking about ‘liberating’ Wikipedia from its stance of taking things as it is. And just like your style, instead of blaming yourself and Exodus for your widely known medically rejected approach which everyone in general already knows about, you blame Wikipedia for favouritism and bias.
Do you realise it is an insult to the intelligence of men when you continuously stuff your own truths about ‘liberation’ into people’s throats when people already know what the real truth about freedom, really is?
It is like still insisting by God’s order that the Sun moves around the Earth, when everyone knows it is the Earth that goes around the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy
By the way, since you are talking about ‘liberation’, can you pray, by God’s intervention, to LIBERATE the Sun from its ORIENTATION around the Earth (Not sure whether God loves the idea of ‘liberating’ the very beings He himself created though, and in this case of the Earth and the Sun; it could be catastrophe)
And for Our Saviour’s sake, stop going on and on in justifying your words and actions. It is really getting boring.
Please go ahead and try to make the world a better place for your group of confused heterosexual ex-gays without IMPOSING anymore false ideologies about true homosexuals.
And while you are at it, stop trying to change what God had intended and created. Trying to get everyone to agree with your comfortable fixated mind does not win you any favours with God.
You only desire to validate your own sense of self upon people. Look at your posts, since when God comes into the picture, except when people remind you? All I here in this one post is just, “I the head of Exodus” “I the President of Exodus”.
Perhaps you would win more trust, and respect, when you stop laying blame on others for your own fallen pride, contradictions and confusion.
Meanwhile, think about the Earth and the Sun. And ITS orientation. Try liberating that. After all, did the Bible not say the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Sun revolved around it?
Well Alan, David has nicely described the solution.
And here’s the problem: it’s a self-promoting advert. That’s all it is.
This is why Wikipedia does not want autobiography in the first place.
As example… There is no mention of the disputed status of your prior homosexuality. There is no mention that you also claim to continue to be homosexual at the same time as being exgay. You mention 2 “kids”, but not from whence they came. No mention of the 9 months it took to consumate your marriage. There is not one single mention of any of the many times you have contradicted yourself in public. Blah blah blah.
In other words, you have neglected to mention any of the many examples that rightfully could cause people to dispute your version of events, question your public honesty, or raise basic doubts about your implied claim to have changed your sexual orientation.
QED: it’s a self-promoting advert. It doesn’t begin to describe Alan Chambers, but is merely what Alan Chambers wants other people to think about himself.
It’s exactly what you attempted to do with the Wikipedia entry on Exodus. It’s also what NARTH attempted to do.
Claims to ignorance not withstanding, after the past week or so it is perhaps time you asked Colorado Springs to spring for a 2 week intensive at some decent (and deliberately non-Christian) business school and take “Professional Ethics & Management 101”.
Might I suggest — while you are highly religious you also seem to either lack (or are willing to ignore) a basic understanding of ethics. This is the reason why the commonplace rules at Wikipedia seem contradictory to you: they are based on ethics, not morality.
This sort of bumbling silliness is not what people expect of you, honestly.
(thank god I can touch type. My eyes rolled so far back, I’m staring at myself. Not pretty)
YukiChoe and grantdale,
I appreciate you both (three) but your responses are getting too intense and borderline personal, especially for what, as far as I can tell, is a rather basic, honest question. I realize there is rarely a chance to respond directly to Alan so a lot can get pent up in the meantime, but let’s try to keep responses proportionate.
Besides, I would like the chance for us to debate him more often and he may never come back at this rate 😉
Thanks.
Grantdale,
I know you pride yourself on being the brightest and the smartest person here understanding all and knowing all, but that is beginning to bore and tire me. The “examples” you give above as the “whole” story aren’t accurate.
I am actually trying to stick in here, dialogue, take criticisms to heart and be honest. I purposely commented on this thread to show my ignorance, acknowledge that I made a mistake with Wickipedia and see if there was any information I could gain.
I am often criticized for posting once in these forums and disappearing. I am trying not to do that this time. But, commenting seems futile with people like you. You don’t care to hear or read anything I say but rather continue to spew your beliefs and read into everything I say. My entire life isn’t an agenda.
I think the bumbling silliness you refer to is my attempt at being human and what someone else called transparent.
(and acknowledged David. So we’ll ignore responding to the gratuitous etc)
Alan,
Point out what was inaccurate. What was untrue?
Apart from that, those were “blah blah blah” etc. It was a laundry list.
It illustrates that there is an awful lot out there that gets said, read, and misread. At times for the pure intention of being hurtful, accurate or not. We know that. The particulars are not important, but it goes directly to an ethical concern called conflict of interest. Wikipedia?
At the same, I’m not going to accept you playing up being the hurt little boy.
You are the President of Exodus.
That role is indeed “an agenda”, and it is one that is harmful to millions of people. Under your leadership Exodus has become a very political, partisan and dishonest organisation. You also present yourself to the general public as holding some professional capacity and expertise.
You appear in public and make destructive comments about gay and lesbian individuals. You draw your salary from an organisation that is both anti-gay itself and is connected to the most influencial and well known anti-gay organisations in the country. Those organisations, and Exodus, engage in a slanderous campaign against people like us. Exodus repeats what they say, and they turn to you for “expert comment”. Exodus supports and is used in their anti-gay activities. You have never once spoken out against Focus, or FRC, or CWFA — even to the point of being utterly silent when they campaigned to keep criminal laws against gay people.
But are you asking to be excluded from personal review, even though you have no hesitation claiming in public that you are “The Proof” that Grant and Dale could change? Alan Chambers must not be upset by us, even though he is President of an outspoken prop for the scaldingly false and dehumanising treatment of gay men and women?
Is that dialogue?
Alan, the bumbling silliness has nothing to do with being human or transparent; and making mistakes. Rather, it has everything to do with you claiming to want to be open and honest, but behaving in opposite ways the moment you think nobody is watching. And getting caught. (Your nonsense with Cohen being but the latest example.)
Alan, neither of us work in any way to prevent you or anyone else trying to achieve anything they want from life. We don’t need to fake that sincerity.
And you, for those of us? Exactly.
Hi, Alan. I was a prolific contributor to Wikipedia for a long time.
Unfortunately (from your point-of-view), it is just one of the generally accepted principles on Wikipedia that you should not contribute extensively to an article about yourself. Which I think is fair enough; after all, if someone were writing an encyclopaedic article or book about you, while you might expect them to take into consideration your own views, you would not expect the right to be able to edit the finished product.
On Wikipedia (in theory), authority is based on verifiable sources. If someone can point to published evidence to support a claim they include in an article about you or Exodus, they are entitled to do so. Unfortunately, an individual saying, “Yes, but I know what it’s really about,” is not considered a verifiable source. If you personally tell me that you were born in 1965, say, I can’t use that to back up my claim on Wikipedia if someone else has a verifiable source (a published newspaper article, say) that says different.
I feel I might just confuse you further by trying to explain this to you, because one of the things about Wikipedia is that you can’t really understand how it works simply by reading a list of rules and sticking to them. It’s a community project that has many guidelines, none of which is fully sacrosanct, and all of which are flexible. In theory, the overriding principle is discussion and consensus, even if it doesn’t always work out quite so idealistically! The only way to get to know how Wikipedia works is to be part of the ongoing project, working and struggling alongside others as part of a community. That’s not something you can do simply by turning up and learning a few rules.
On a practical note, you are probably wondering what you can do if you think verifiable evidence is not being taken into account. Have you tried a mediation? There are formal and informal mediations where another Wikipedian will moderate a discussion between you and others working on an article. If you can get together a handful of reasonable people on either side of a debate as polarized as this one, there is a chance of a good discussion and some progress.
grantdale, why don’t you edit Alan’s Wikipedia page?
Oh good lord! Now you know why I don’t rely on Wikipedia! LOL
Actually, Jim, I use Wikipedia for research regularly, and have found it extremely reliable – in general. Unfortunately, some subjects are very politically charged, however, and result in very uneven articles!
No one mentioned it, but Mike Hatfield’s changes also contained numerous grammatical errors. As any professional knows, such basic errors makes one’s professional credibility questionable.