Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the previous reviewer withdrawn. Due to the nominator requested, and I cite, "If you believe it is ungrammatical it is up to you to explain why" I will request at the end a second opinion on prose. I have already read the article once, and while prose is not bad, the inquiries made by Mark and Bluemoon are indeed valid. Right now, the only comment I will say is that depart something does not mean the same depart from something means. 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):

   Requested a second opinion; the user said it was not problematic.

   B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):

   Yes, every source is verified to exist. I, however, cannot access them all, but good faith is assumed in all those instances, and ergo I cannot fail an article because I cannot access a specific source per Wikipedia rules.

   B. Citation of available and reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):

   I didn't ask for citations after quotes becuase it would look like this[1]. If someone believes every single statement is to be sourced, look for consensus. For reliability, refer to point 4.

   C. No original research:

   None of the accessed sources had OR.

   D. No copyright violations:

   Already verified in GA1

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article is about a book, not conversion theraphy. See also point 4

   B. Focused:

   See point 4

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   See below

5. Is it stable?

   edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):

6. Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?

   A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Use of "the" before professions

• You said "based on my experience with previous discussions of the issue" it's better to use the. Can you provide similar discussions? because I've always have been taught to avoid definite articles for this. Even Grammarly is pointing it out as an error.

Lead

• "traditional psychoanalytic technique" -> either "techniques" or "the traditional psychoanalytic technique".
• "as being partly the result of the psychological professions failure" -> psychological profession's

Overview

• "a view he criticized as authoritarian" -> If Drescher said it quote it because without quotes sounds like a POV.
• "In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association" -> "In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)", you use the acronym immediately below (MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE)
• "the cause of male homosexuality is not applicable to all homosexual patients" -> "does not apply" sounds more natural.

Reviews

• "The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?

Withdrawal from sale by Amazon

• "including the American Psychological Association." -> including the APA.
• "reported that a group of Republican members of the United States House of Representatives were campaigning -> a group... was campaigning.
• "According to Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them" -> It is not "according to Gander" because it is an interview. This requires rewriting.

Online articles

• NBC News-> NBC News. This is caused by the |work= parameter, which forces the italics. You can replace it with |publisher=

• Same with Vice News.
• Same with Website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which could be linked.

• "Aviles, Gwen (July 4, 2019) -> It says "July 3, 2019, 4:09 PM CDT"

Article on hold/wait for a second opinion. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

My main concern would be 1(a). For example, there are 65 "that"s in the article, and as far as I know English language does not use 'that' that much (no pun intended). © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion:

I do not see a major 1(a) concern. I'm not clear on where the article is overusing "that", a very common word, or why 65 uses of the term amongst a 1800 word article is an issue. I do, however, note a lack of absence of evaluating the article under criteria #2(a)–(c), #3 and #4. In particular, as a highly contentious article on a fringe issue, the article needs thorough checking to ensure that it presents the medical consensus correctly and always provides mainstream medical information alongside any claims which are not mainstream. Such checks have not been justified by comments at this GA review or the previous partially-completed one. The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge. One has to read to the second paragraph to see any mention that conversion therapy, including reparative therapy, is a pseudoscience. Even then, such claims are attributed vaguely to "some" or to "critics". It needs to be clear that these "some"/"critics" include mainstream professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association, and the APA's specific criticisms of reparative therapy and specifically of Nicolosi need be mentioned in the lead.

The body of the article goes a lot of the way to making sure it presents fringe viewpoints appropriately, but this needs thorough evaluation as well, as there may be areas which need improvement. For instance, spotchecks of references should be done to check that due weight is given to them depending on the depth and relevance of their comments.

Though unfortunate to drag out this process further given that the article was in the GAN queue for several months, and has now had two reviewers, I am afraid a full review is yet to be done. It would not be appropriate to the standards of GA quality to pass this article without a full review being done; but the article should not be failed without giving the primary contributor a fair chance at addressing concerns in a full review. I recommend that Tbhotch should reply saying whether they are willing to evaluate the article with detailed explanations under criteria #2(a)–(c), #3 and #4, and if not that another reviewer should do a full review of these criteria.

I separately note some civility issues that contributed to the abandoning of the first review and may be relevant to this review, and encourage the nominator to be patient, polite and willing to accept feedback. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge." -> This article is about a book and not about "reparative therapy" itself. I assume you refer to "Nicolosi [...] maintains that the form of conversion therapy he promotes, 'reparative therapy', does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son." These statements are what Nicolosi describes in the book, i.e. the "summary" of what Nicolosi wrote, i.e the summary of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. It cannot be immediately challenged with, which in my view is out of place for a 1st paragraph (per point 3b and 4): "However, the APA et. al. oppose Nicolosi, his work and statements as 'pseudoscientific'"; as you noted these comments are located in paragraph two ("One has to read to the second paragraph"—as if that was problematic, I mean the lead has around 200 words): "Critics faulted Nicolosi's scholarship [...] some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific." Of course "critics" and "some" are vague at the very least, however "It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on [...] by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows [...] The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic [...] and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies": "The American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and similar treatments" and "[the book] was withdrawn from sale by Amazon following a campaign by gay rights activists. Some commentators supported Amazon's decision, while others criticized it as a form of censorship."—which isn't because Amazon is a private company, but that's how opposers called it but then again, that's irrelevant to this article, per 3b.

And that phrase alone, "it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge" despite they are there, makes me wonder how did you request me to "[do] a full review", as if I directly skipped every point and went directly to review points 5 and 6. I, however, will leave a thorough commentary on why I approved points 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b and 4. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You accidentally omitted the word not in your MOS:LEAD quote not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows, giving the opposite meaning. While the article is not about reparative therapy, it presents information related to reparative therapy, including a detailed account of an individual's view on conversion therapy, so WP:FRINGE applies. This is uncontroversial. MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH reads that the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view [...] It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. Of course, listing Nicolosi's views only is not a neutral point of view—we all agree on this because we are agreed that there should be some description of criticism of the book in this article. Hence, the summary of the book must not be the only view provided in the lead paragraph, so that the surrounding context can be established. The reason this guideline is present is because many readers only read the first paragraph. It may be that none of us ever do this, or that we wish readers would read further, or that we eyeroll at people who do not bother to read a measly 200 words, but nonetheless but we have MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH for a reason.

I'm not quite sure of the protocol for a second opinion when there is disagreement over it. Perhaps we can still reach agreement in some manner though. It wouldn't take much more than reordering some of the lead comments and rewording a couple of word choices for me to find the lead agreeable. And then a thorough commentary on the approval of criteria 2–4 would address my other comments. — Bilorv (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species (FA), which was way more criticized than this one, does not even attempt to mention the criticism it received until paragraph 3. If the problem is "identif[ication of] the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" it can easily be rewritten to "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a book about conversion therapy by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi that was published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991." And the rest moved to paragraph 2, with I assume no further problem. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Response from Freeknowledgecreator

Hello, Tbhotch. Thank you for your review. For some reason, I did not get a notice about it on my talk page, but I am aware of it nevertheless. I will respond to all your comments in the very near future. I will start off with two points.

Firstly, regarding the vexatious issue of the inclusion or non-inclusion of "the" before someone's profession, I think that it is unfortunate that a good article review should be used to insist on a change to what should surely be considered an optional style issue. Some may consider the inclusion of the definite article in this context an error; others in good faith may disagree. See for example the Good article review for Stephen McNallen. I conducted the review. I commented at one stage, "One sentence reads, 'The sociologist of religion Jennifer Snook described it as "the first national Heathen organization in the United States". You may disagree, but personally I would not have begun a sentence of that kind with "the" ', to which the editor who nominated the article responded with "I'm going to disagree here, if that's okay; at a number of previous GAs and FAs I've found that there are editors who always insist on the addition of "the" when referring to someone's professional position". I accepted the response, firstly because I would have been embarrassed to try to dictate minor points like this, as if to force someone to agree with me when they had a reasonable basis for not doing so, and secondly because on reconsideration I decided that the response was actually correct and that it does read better to include "the" in cases like this. I am not responsible for what Grammarly does or does not claim is an error. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, you comment, ""The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?" Well, I obviously don't know, as I have not read the review. In my opinion, it is helpful to know that a book was reviewed by a particular person in a particular publication, even without knowing what was actually said in the review, since it gives the reader some idea of the kind of impact a book made, and provides them with at least a starting point for further research (they can try to look up the review for themselves, if they care about it). Nevertheless, I will remove mention of the Billet review if you think I should. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Other things.

1. You suggested that "traditional psychoanalytic technique" should be changed to either "techniques" or "the traditional psychoanalytic technique". I've changed it to "techniques".

 Done

2. You pointed out a typo ("psychological professions failure"). Thanks. Fixed it.

 Done

3. You noted that I should add the acronym for "American Psychiatric Association". Done.

 Done

4. "If Drescher said it quote it because without quotes sounds like a POV". I am simply noting what Drescher says in his article ("The Therapist's Authority and the Patient's Sexuality"). He does indeed use the term "authoritarian". I am not sure why simply reporting what he says "sounds like a POV", but I will add quotation marks around "authoritarian".

 Done if you paraphrase authoritarian you don't need quotes but without them is an adjective and gives the sensation of being a subjective view. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

5. You suggest that "does not apply" sounds more natural than "is not applicable". You have a point. I may make the change. However, it pays to remember that sometimes a given phrase that does not sound as "natural" as another phrase actually reflects the language used in the source more accurately. This may be such a case. I do not currently have access to the Weinrich article, but I have requested it at Resource Requests, and hopefully will have it soon. I will read it again and reconsider this one.

 Done It's merely a suggestion. It's up to you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

6. You suggest that "including the American Psychological Association" should be changed to "including the APA". I'm confused by this suggestion. "APA" is already used in the article as an acronym for American Psychiatric Association. It is just an unfortunate fact that "American Psychiatric Association" and "American Psychological Association" have names that produce the same acronym ("APA"). As "APA" has already been used in the article as an acronym for "American Psychiatric Assocation", I cannot use it as an acronym for "American Psychological Association" as well, as you suggest I should, without creating confusion between the two APAs.

 Done As this article uses Psychiatric twice and Psychological once there's no problem. If you'd use them both on more instances, then yes, you would need to use their full names throughout. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

7. You object to the phrase "According to Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them". I am not sure exactly what the problem with the phrase is, in your view. Nevertheless, I have changed it, to "In an interview with Gander, the physician Natasha Bhuyan supported Amazon's decision to stop selling them".

 Done If the interview was not there then would be correct, but here you don't need to attribute to Gander something Bhuyan is saying. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

8. You note a number of minor errors in the citations for online articles. I have made the corrections you suggested, with one exception, noted immediately below (in this case I don't believe I have actually made a mistake).

 Done

9. You suggest that I have made an error in the date I gave for the article by Gwen Aviles (the article can be seen at https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/amazon-removes-controversial-books-father-conversion-therapy-n1026446). I checked the article again. What it states is, "July 4, 2019, 9:09 AM NZST". That corresponds to the date I gave in the article, so I don't see that I have made an error. I don't know why you would see "July 3, 2019, 4:09 PM CDT". For all I know, the date NBC news provides may depend on where in the world you are (websites can determine this and alter content accordingly). I'm in New Zealand, which appears to be very far away from where you are (different time zone).

 Done Then, appears to be displayed per region.

10. You suggest that the article uses the word "that" too much. I am perfectly open to suggestions as to how else it could be written, or words that I could use instead of "that". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As the 2nd opinion said—which is kind of surprising as kind of sounds like I didn't even care about the mentioned points, but I'll explain them above—apparently they aren't incorrect. As I said, and you can see on my user page, English is not my native language. ESLs are taught English from a grammatical point of view in a similar way that English speakers would learn any other language—giving more weight to grammar and syntaxis rules, even though natives don't use them or care about them. One of these rules is that "that" is a curious word, it's important but irrelevant; it can be omitted (or substituted when not possible) or left, and nothing happens. It's Schrödinger's cat of clauses. But as Bilorv said as this seems irrelevant, I won't give an opinion to this.

Back to "The book was also reviewed by Kirk-Evan Billet in Island Lifestyle Magazine." What did he say?" I would say, remove it and restore it once you know what he said because it doesn't add anything to the article. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Point 4 and withdrawal

User:Sxologit wrote just yesterday on the talkpage: "[The author] essentially given the books detractors and it’s supporters equal weight despite fringe views." Equally, User:Bilorv wrote, "In particular, as a highly contentious article on a fringe issue, the article needs thorough checking to ensure that it presents the medical consensus correctly".

This article is not about a fringe theory, conversion therapy, this article is about a book whose key elements are fringe theories and since its publication has been used by conversion "therapist" as a kind of Bible. On the Origin of Species, a featured article about what few consider a fringe theory, evolution, and it presents the elements of what the topic is: an essay about evolution based upon natural selection, not evolutionary biology. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality presents the elements of what the topic is: an essay about a man who is using deprecated Freud's theories to develop his own theory, not reparative therapy.

Sxologist further said: "This is like giving climate change denialism 50/50 air time with a credible scientist." 97/100 scientific studies agree global warming exists, as noted by Scientific consensus on climate change, while it also says that "and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors", neither Scientific consensus on climate change nor Climate change develop this further, so what's the point of even mentioning it. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality at the very least gives "detractors and it's supporters equal weight". Of course, this book and topic was, is and will be praised by conservative religious people and LGBT opposers, and of course, it was, is and will be panned by the rest, should it be developed to the point it reads as "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received praise by few people, conservative people and conversion therapists like always, while it was panned by the majority: liberals, human right activists, psychology associations, and pretty much anyone who didn't praise it, PS, if you find a copy burn this book or you support it." Of course not, and I think that's what's going on here with the WP:FRINGE comments. It could be very simplistic to say "this article gives the impression that reparative therapy is OK because it doesn't include more sources criticizing it to the point the article says it's trash literature, and any source supporting it is dubious and has no opinion in the discussion. For example, Sxologist said in the talk page I. Reed Payne is unqualified to make the said statements, but what makes journalist Gwen Aviles qualified to say conversion therapy is pseudoscientific. One can argue that yes, it's a statement that could be removed, but as of now, nobody opposed its inclusion—I do, I find it out of place and a irrelevant opinion, so is "Daniel Reynolds reported in The Advocate in February 2019 that the gay writer Damian Barr had criticized Amazon for selling the books, arguing that they were discredited and harmful", but my opinion is not the last word here. This leads me to think that apparently there are double standards regarding fringe theories, by one side anyone who supports them is to be questioned and considered unreliable ipso facto, while anyone who opposes them should not be questioned and its opinion is appropriate no matter what, and this is clearly an unneutral point of view. And don't get me wrong, as I read the article I could describe the book as archaic, contradictory and simplistic, per the same reasons Payne said, Payne, who wrote a text supporting the book.

Personally I don't find the article to be problematic—I honestly expected to find an article giving undue positive weight to conversion therapy and it isn't—if anything the subject is problematic. But what apparently is being problematic is that it doesn't go further on scientific and psychologic points discrediting conversion therapies to the point it stops being about a book and the article converts to a sub-article of conversion therapy. At this point, I'm torn between approving it or rejecting it, because if I approve it I already know it will end up at WP:GAR or similar venues for approving a controversial topic without giving it more weight to science, as if we needed scientists telling us at every conversion therapy page that it is not reliable and it has been discredited, but if I reject it practically will be another WP:PR. However, while I find "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each", and this is the first instance I find readers opposing its neutrality, I think approving it will be more problematic for the nominator and the article than for me for approving it for not considering others' opinions on the topic. Because of this, I officially withdraw from reviewing it. @Freeknowledgecreator: sorry for the withdrawal, but that's the issue with controversial topics, and in this case, the audience was not impressed so I have to leave. I will leave the GA3 page available, but it's up to you if you want to continue with the process. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have simply written an article that reflects what the available sources state about the book. I have not written an article that promotes conversion therapy. It doesn't surprise me, however, where a subject like this is concerned, that someone wants to make angry accusations. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: This is late and I know it's irrelevant, but I did want to respond to your criticism of my comments. The reason a journalist like Gwen Aviles is more qualified to say that? Well it's that they're simply rehashing the findings of major medical associations such as the APA. That indeed gives them more weight than some positive review of a written by an unknown man in a random book. If you didn't know, reparative therapy was proven to be quackery and false advertising in the JONAH case. Freeknowledgecreator was just banned as a sock puppet, and his editing from his other socks is telling. I'm not impressed by a large write up implying I'm somehow 'angry' about the book - simply because I am familiar with the research on the etiology of sexual orientation (are you?). In future, perhaps you could avoid trying to read the mind of other users for criticizing a NPOV/FRINGE issue, especially in an article which was 95% written by a single user. Sxologist (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to Second Opinion

Bilorv provided a second opinion. He stated, "The first paragraph of the lead shows issue in this regard: it presents Nicolosi's views without challenge." Bilorv, the first paragraph of the lead does not "challenge" Nicolosi's views because evaluating them is not its purpose. Rather the purpose of that paragraph is to describe what Nicolosi's are. Describing what Nicolosi's views are is something the lead obviously has to do. Describing Nicolosi's views is not same as endorsing them or suggesting that they are correct. The use of the term "presents" could be seen as a way of subtly bluring the distinction between describing and endorsing. If the phrase "presents Nicolosi's views" is a way of implying that simply describing Nicolosi's views is the same as endorsing them, my response is that that is simply untrue. Evaluating Nicolosi's views is the purpose of the second paragraph of the lead; the evaluation of them there is of course mainly negative, simply because the responses Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality received have been mainly negative.

You note that, "One has to read to the second paragraph" to get the criticism of Nicolosi. Respectfully, I don't believe that is a problem. One can reasonably expect that someone who reads the lead won't stop at just the first paragraph and somehow come away with the idea that Nicolosi's views are correct. You state that it needs to be clear that critics of Nicolosi, "include mainstream professional bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association"; that is clear. The position of the American Psychiatric Association is noted very clearly in the lead. You say that, "APA's specific criticisms of reparative therapy and specifically of Nicolosi need be mentioned in the lead"; I believe they already are, to the extent that such criticisms are appropriate to the lead, which after all is only a summary and is not supposed to go into full detail, which is the purpose of the remainder of the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right that I made a rather large mistake in my APA comment, which I have now stricken. I don't quite know how I made it, and I apologise. Nonetheless, I believe my comments about MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH remain accurate, and I do not see a policy contrary to my suggestions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are free to criticize the article on any grounds you wish, but criticisms are not helpful without specific suggestions for improvement. Please make such suggestions. Maybe you will propose something that would improve the article and we can reach agreement. On the other hand, maybe I will decide that your suggested changes would not be improvements and we will not be able to reach agreement. In that case, you are perfectly free to be unfair and fail the article. I will be just as free to conclude that your failing the article is entirely unfair and to say openly and clearly that I think it is entirely unfair. I do not believe that MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH supports your criticisms in the least. What it states is, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view"; the paragraph does "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view", so I fail to see a problem with it. Your criticisms of the way the paragraph is written appear to be based on personal opinions that you are free to hold and I am equally free not to hold. If you fail the article, I will simply nominate it again, in the hope of eventually getting a fairer review. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the situation here, perhaps my fault for continuing to reply on this page. This review has been withdrawn by Tbhotch and I am still not now the reviewer. I was only commenting in a secondary manner for a process that has now ended. I am not going to either pass or fail the review; it is already withdrawn and relisted for discussion at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality/GA3 for a new reviewer. I continue to comment because outside of the GA process, I believe my constructive criticism will improve the article if implemented.

In response to your last couple of sentences: it is disruptive behaviour to renominate a review without addressing any of the issues raised within it, unless there are particular circumstances. You cannot ask the WP:OTHERPARENT until you get the answer you want. If you attempt this in future I will bring it to the attention of a relevant talk page, WikiProject or forum.

You say that: criticisms are not helpful without specific suggestions for improvement. Please make such suggestions. I believe that I did, but I'm happy to elaborate. The change I recommended is quite small and so I'm not sure why it's being met with such a huge wall of resistance, particularly if you are not concretely clear as to what the changes I have proposed are:

Per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, the lead paragraph should both "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view" and "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". Note that NPOV is more than just how information is written, but also which information is written about. (For instance, it wouldn't be NPOV to omit all positive reviews of the book in this article.)

The broad context of the book is that its contents are considered pseudoscience by the psychiatric community. To this end, it's important that it receives mention in the first paragraph. Luckily, it currently receives mention in the second paragraph so the only change required is to move a piece of information from the second paragraph to the first.

I suggest this piece of information should be The American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and similar treatments aimed at changing a patient's sexual orientation, which are based on theories that conflict with its position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Where it goes and how best to make the first paragraph flow is then a question with several possible answers, and one that I now put forward is this:

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about conversion therapy by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi, who draws on work by previous authors, maintains that the form of conversion therapy he promotes, "reparative therapy", does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son. This contrasts with the American Psychiatric Association's position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and its opposition to reparative therapy and similar treatments. The book was first published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991.

Another option if you don't like that one:

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach is a 1991 book about a form of conversion therapy known as "reparative therapy", by the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. The American Psychiatric Association opposes reparative therapy and other treatments which aim to change a patient's sexual orientation, due to its position that that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Nicolosi, who draws on work by previous authors, maintains that reparative therapy does not remove all of a person's homosexual feelings, but can help men who do not wish to be homosexual to either become celibate or prepare for heterosexual marriage. He views male homosexuality as a developmental problem that often results from problems between father and son. The book was first published in the United States by Jason Aronson in 1991.

I don't believe these changes to be substantial or unreasonable, but a small compromise based on a reasonable interpretation of policy. — Bilorv (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are not actually reviewing the article then this discussion certainly seems to have served its purpose. Discussion about improving the article can take place on its talk page as normal. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)