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.