Talk:Richard A. Cohen

DSM IV.

I've been emailed a reference to the DSM IV but I don't have access to it, so I'd appreciate it if someone who does could please check and incoporate the info from "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), American Psychiatric Association, 1994, Washington, DC, p. 538, “Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified” 302.9, no. 3, persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation." into the "Medical view of reparative therapy" section. -- Jeandré, 2007-10-15t20:10z

Notability and conflict of interest?

@Truedad21: It might be fair for me to assume you are closely connected with the topic given the fact that you have a) uploaded the photo, and b) ONLY edited this article. If you are, you need to declare your conflict of interest. Numerous editors have pointed out that this reads like a promotional advert (although some tweaks have made it a bit better). I am going to ping @Crossroads: and @Flyer22 Frozen: who have a better eye for this than I do, but as far as I know, some of the citations are not up to scratch. Citing the ex-gay organisation pathinfo, which Cohen is involved with (and co-founded) is not up to scratch. Citing self published works are not up to scratch. They need to be reputable secondary sources. This is not personal, you are entitled to your views entirely, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia which features articles on notable figures. I don't see much evidence that Cohen is even particularly notable. For example, Charles W. Socarides authored a volume of psychoanalytic literature on homosexuality, published by press houses, and which was at least informed by the freudian hypothesis of the time. Cohen, however, has written a bunch of self published works through what looks to be his own organization, PATH Press? There are a few news links, most of them dead, about the one time Cohen received some press coverage, and the Wikipedia article doesn't even accurately represent the coverage of these. Some of the articles which are relevant to the issues I raised are discussed in Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Sxologist (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: can I get your thoughts on this article relying heavily on self-published sources, and advertorial style? Sxologist (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Truedad21: you have provided no response, so I am going to begin editing the article. Sxologist (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been suggested that I may have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article. I will state my bona fides for the record:

- I am NOT the subject of this article, nor affiliated professionally or financially with the subject. My interest and exposure extends to being a professional therapist trained in well-established Attachment Theory, having met the subject, attended trainings led by Cohen prior to 2017, read 2 or 3 of the subject's books. I did communicate with Cohen when researching this article, as well as other article sources, and have utilized therapeutic techniques acquired through seminars with Cohen or others trained by him, including research-based and validated Cognitive, Behavioral, Psychodynamic and Neurobiological Trauma techniques, among others. I have focused on this article because, while I do not spend time editing Wiki pages, the bias, distortion and censorship exercised on this page pains me. I seek only balance, fairness, and "Encyclopedic neutrality," and submit to the community to evaluate any current edits. Thank you. Truedad21 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The versions that I read of 2 of Cohen's books were published by established publishers (Oakhill and Intervarsity), then republished by Cohen's organization later. I don't know if others were also. This needs to be clarified in the article, perhaps a bibliography of works legitimately published by outside sources, and a mention of self-published works, or examples of such, late in the article itself?

In my view, like Socarides, these press house publications contain established psychological theories and practices, as I mentioned above: Cognitive, Behavioral, Neurobiological and Psychodynamic among them. This makes the biased and sensationalized characterization of the subject's approach in the lead paragraph even more egregious, unfair and inappropriate. Truedad21 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a simple way to persuade others on Wikipedia: provide reliable sources that support your view. If Cohen's work is accepted by mainstream scholarship, you should be able to show e.g. supportive reviews of his books in mainstream publications. Absent that, even books published by non-vanity presses are probably not notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Three of Mr.Cohen's books have been published by professional publishing houses (Coming Out Straight by Oakhill Press in 2000, Gay Children, Straight Parents in 2007 by InterVarsity Press and Alfie's Home by IHF press in 1993). Also content of his books is highly intellectual, based on good psychotherapy techniques with through literature search and references. Dr.Green1245 (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)— Dr.Green1245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is very clear of the necessity of a neutral point of view. The current article lead paragraph does not follow a neutral point of view and should be changed. In the lead paragraph: "offers discredited conversion therapy" is not neutral, and heavily biased. "purporting" hints at a false claim, which is a biased assumption.

The content of this wiki page is heavily one-sided. Wikipedia is clear "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." The edits on this page are libellous. It defames Cohen, who is alive. This is unacceptable, and as Wikipedia states, needs to be corrected immediately. Using biased sources to justify biased edits is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lukehhuneycutt (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)— Lukehhuneycutt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I know Richard, Personally. He does great work. He helped me and my family. Not only helped us but hundreds of others who experienced internal conflicts, whether those be sexual or not. Malakh222 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)— Malakh222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@SxologistI have read one of Mr. Cohen's book recently which helped me tremendously in my own professional growth (I am a psychiatrist by profession).I was searching about Mr. Cohen's other work on google and I found this wikipedia page. I am surprised to see some negative comments and how this page has very limited and biased information about Mr. Cohen's work. Everyone has right to disagree with someone's work as you have to disagree with Mr. Cohen's work but writing false information and butchering someone's true work just because you disagree with them is unfair. I would be more than happy to have a healthy discussion about Mr. Cohen's work that has helped me to understand basics of psychotherapy and healing process in general regardless of sexual orientation. Thanks and peace to you. Dr.Green1245 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)— Dr.Green1245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sxologist- although I did not respond to this comment in the past, I suggest that you have misrepresented Wiki standards regarding self-published sources for BLPs, and misapplied them in this case: Regarding BLPs: "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article”(emphasis Wikipedia's). In other words, while using Cohen’s publications or websites in an attempt to document the number of therapists he has trained is “not up to scratch,” referring to these to document what he believes and teaches definitely IS up to scratch, regardless of whether you or anyone else agrees or not. I note that you pinged a couple of editors above regarding your contention, and in the years since no one has supported you. You and Generalrelative have not established consensus to remove the references that you did. BTW, when books are not only published professionally in one language, but republished in as many as eight, including major publishers in Europe, the Middle East, etc., removing them for alleged lack of notoriety is “not up to scratch.” Truedad21 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What links to this page

Why does searching 'same-sex attraction disorder' in the search bar link to here? It ought not. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've changed the redirect to Conversion therapy. Generalrelative (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

BOLD edits

I've made a number of them. Happy to discuss here if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative- in regards to your reversion and comment on the Editing page of Richard A Cohen- "Establish consensus on talk before re-adding disputed content," and your comment above- "Happy to discuss here if necessary:"

1. I did not "re-add" disputed content. I added new content based upon a previous dispute: that self-published books are not of encyclopedic value. Knowing through my own encounter (I read them) that 2 of subject's books are professionally published, I posted those, with ISBN #s, publishers, etc. What is the dispute?
2. A second dispute has been whether I have a conflict of interest in editing this page. As Wiki rules require, I posted my interest, motivation and (lack of any) direct affiliation with the subject, other than having engaged the ideas and therapeutic approach in my reading and training. Are you disputing my right to edit? Wiki rules are clear: a point of view is NOT a COI. Unless you claim I'm lying, and therefore violating Wiki rules (which I am not), then you are engaging in censorship based only upon a different point of view. Are you trying to "cancel" me?

Rather than ignoring my efforts to communicate/cooperate with you, and simply reverting any edits I make, please respond to me here. I am following Wiki rules, and fully intend to submit to the community and seek consensus here for "disputed content," of which adding professionally published books should not be a part. Please clarify what you are disputing and either undo or justify your most recent revision, which is a violation in itself. Thank you.

Truedad21

(

talk

) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Truedad21 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Truedad21, it's not a huge deal, but you have missed where I responded to you above. I have neither ignored you nor failed to clarify what I am disputing. Generalrelative (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nor did he respond to your question on his talk page about the photos and COI editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Zenomoz- I have responded to the COI challenge extensively here, on THIS talk page, where it was first raised. Do you want me to reproduce that on my own talk page? Are YOU questioning my response? And, when I noted that I contacted Cohen (and other article sources- I attempted to reach Wayne Besen as well) when I decided to edit the article 4 years ago, it was mainly to ask for photos. Truedad21 (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually responded in much greater detail on my talk page. You must've missed it. Truedad21 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Welll Generalrelative asked on your talk page "I see that you've responded to Zenomonoz's question but not mine. This is a legitimate concern so I'd appreciate an answer" and you did not respond. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Zenomonoz- thank you for alerting me to what I missed on my talk page. I have responded in detail. Truedad21 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Violating Wiki's Encyclopedic Standards; Distorting a Supposed Biography (BLP)

Generalrelative- I have several complaints regarding your editing of the Richard A. Cohen BLP, as well as responses to your complaints about a COI and sockpuppetry on my part (which I have posted above on this Talk Page and on the COI Noticeboard) and other concerns. First, my complaints- I will appreciate your response to each:

1. You removed all self-published books by Cohen, claiming “It is unclear that this list is of encyclopedic value.” This is despite the fact that:

- Two of these were professionally published initially, and several were re-published by professional publishers in multiple languages (I have since gathered all of the international ISBN numbers, in case you wish to verify this).

- Multiple Wiki pages include self-published works in their publication lists, especially biographical pages. Shall I send you examples? Have you ever removed self-published works from any other biography? If so, I’ll be very interested to see of whom.

- This page is a Biography of a Living Person (BLP). Wiki describes a biography as an account of a person’s life, and while advising caution when using self-published works as sources, it doesn't prohibit using them in that way, but rather says that self-published sources from the SUBJECT of an article are absolutely USABLE for a BLP: "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis Wikipedia's).

On what grounds are you claiming that the subject’s own written works have no encyclopedic value on his biographical page ( a page first created, by the way, not by the subject or proponents of his work, but by activists who oppose it)?

2.    When I responded to your initial removal and continued rejection of multiple attempts to reintroduce them, by posting the original versions of 2 of Cohen’s initial works, published independently by respected Houses (Oakhill and InterVarsity Presses), you removed these as well, stating “establish consensus on Talk Page before re-adding disputed content.” When I pointed out on the article’s Talk Page (above) that this was NEW content, which had not been disputed by anyone (you had disputed self-published works only), you moved the goalposts, and switched to a different justification, “If Cohen's work is accepted by mainstream scholarship, you should be able to show e.g. supportive reviews of his books in mainstream publications. Absent that, even books published by non-vanity presses are probably not notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia” (also above). Once again you mis-referred to reliable sources, when the subject's books are both biographical evidence of his achievements and deemed by Wikipedia to be a "reliable source" of his own ideas. So in addition I ask you:

- Have you ever removed professionally published books from any other biographical website’s list of the subject’s publications? Would you remove Mein Kampf from Hitler’s bio for lack of mainstream “supportive reviews,” or do you consider Cohen in a different category because of ideas which you have labelled “fringe?” If you are challenging the subject's notability (after seven written books and multiple media appearances have been stripped from the article), I'm happy to have that discussion.

While your requirement for “positive” scholarly reviews as a test for the newsworthiness of a biographical subject's writings seems patently ridiculous, what may be less obvious to some is your marginalization of Cohen, based upon your opinion that the subject is “fringe” and unimportant. Nevertheless, I present to you here an example of the very mainstream positive reviews you have demanded as a test, from the Library Journal, of Cohen’s first, Oakhill published book, “Coming Out Straight.” In it, a gay-identified librarian and sexuality scholar whose own published work demonstrates views quite different from Cohen, calls it a “…comprehensive, well-written, well-organized, and heavily referenced guide,” and calls Cohen’s approach “… sympathetic and rational,” and "recommended for libraries with large gender collections." I ask you:

- Do you still maintain that the subject’s written works have no place in a biography of him, or will you move the goalposts again, and find another excuse to marginalize Cohen?

- If you acknowledge the reasonable points I have made above, are you willing to voluntarily reverse your reversal, and post the subjects professionally published books? How about self-published books that have been reviewed and translated into multiple languages, which Wikipedia deems acceptable for a BLP?

3. Wiki’s Standards and Manual of Style clarify that articles on contentious topics be written “from a neutral point of view,” include BOTH SIDES of a controversy, and that lead paragraphs be a summary of the article. When you insist on identifying Cohen with “Conversion Therapy” (as you did in your COI complaint), yet deny the inclusion of Cohen’s own statements to the contrary, and eliminate his written works that demonstrate a legitimate, research-based therapeutic approach which even a gay-identified reviewer calls “sympathetic and rational,” is that neutral, fair or encyclopedic? You claim “consensus” with a mainstream view about Conversion Therapy being “fringe,” but the page you link the term to from Cohen’s article does NOT represent Cohen’s approach or teaching, and you deny the inclusion of both his assertions about this and his writings that will demonstrate it to any fair-minded reader. When you insist on removing the subject's voice from his own biographical page and rejecting all references to Cohen’s personal journey and experience, yet allow and re-introduce negative characterizations of Cohen’s life and work (some of which were proven false and removed from this page, now reintroduced) referenced from activists who clearly consider him an enemy, detractors who have an "axe to grind," aren’t you effectively censoring Cohen, distorting a BLP, violating the rules for contentious topics and perverting Wikipedia’s encyclopedic intent?

4. Despite your obvious scholarship and professionalism, and your apparent intent, you have continued to maintain an imbalanced and dismissive portrayal of the subject based upon your (and others) judgment of his point of view and relevance, which distorts the subject’s “biographical” Wiki page and violates Wiki’s guidelines for reporting on contentious topics. You have re-introduced negative and biased information while removing and rejecting, like a vigilant defender, any and all reasonable efforts to achieve the neutral and balanced portrayal that Wiki’s Manual of Style outlines. You have justified rejecting my attempts by accusing me of a COI (I have disclosed my interest and affiliation on this Talk Page months ago), and the efforts of others by falsely claiming “consensus” against them. Generalrelative, I ask you:

- What “consensus” have you established? Besides the grand total of two comments (see above, 3 years ago) on the overly promotional tone of my earliest, untrained edits, and the constructive improvements of one other editor (Spintendo), ONLY ONE ACCOUNT is removing published and non-published books, distorting any balance in the lead paragraph, and rejecting any and all attempts to re-introduce them- yours. And your "consensus" is a grand total of ONE cheerleader- Zenomonoz, whose talk page reflects a number of combative interactions and advocacy around a number of topics, including sexual orientation issues, and who has been the subject of multiple sockpuppet investigations. Well to be honest, there was a third account that formerly played a similar role toward this page as Generalrelative- Sexologist. Oh wait, Zenomonoz has admitted to creating the Sexologist account in order to address sexual orientation-related articles! Not surprisingly, Sexologist was subsequently blocked indefinitely in November, 2020 for sockpuppetry (the conflict was apparently resolved, and his account since restored). So Generalrelative, it is you, Zenomonoz, and Sexologist- who was actually Zenomonoz. 2 accounts attacking this page. Where is your “consensus” for rejecting and rolling back edits with which you disagree?

By the way, I respect your affirmation and disclosure on your User Page, and just as it is with me, having an identity and point of view is not in itself a Conflict of Interest.

I responded to all questions about any potential COI, and disclosed my interest and relationship (or lack thereof) to the subject of this article on its Talk Page months ago, and the COI Notice Board where you had posted a complaint despite my disclosure. Oddly, you stated you don't believe I'm lying, yet obviously do not believe my explanation. What are you hoping to achieve? A further response to your COI and Sockpuppetry concerns about me will follow in a separate post. Regarding my questions to you, in the absence of your response, explanations, corrective action on unprofessional and anti-journalistic edits, and the willingness to participate in a truly fair, balanced and collaborative process, I of course welcome public comment on their substance, and if necessary will present them to the Arbitration Committee. Truedad21 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have time to reply to the claims made about editing guidelines yet, but just FYI, bringing up my old SPI is completely off topic and uncalled for. That was resolved and I was unblocked. It’s also a misrepresentation. I never socked to ‘distance from a controversial edit history’. Accusing users of hypocrisy and using labels like ‘your cheerleader’ is presumably WP:UNCIVIL. It would be productive for you to strike out the comments like this and apologise. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I incorrectly made the reference to distancing yourself from a controversial editing history as one of the purposes of creating Sexologist based upon a hasty reading of your explanation in the archived investigation, and the comment, "I did have some reason to not declare my prior editing when asked." I apologize for this and will correct it in the text of my post. On the other hand, the November 2020 announcement on the Sexologist Talk Page that that account IS indefinitely blocked was never followed up by an announcement that it has been unblocked, and an attempt today to message you on that page created an announcement that Sexologist is still blocked indefinitely, referring to the archived investigation I linked in the post above. An earlier indefinite block for abuse of multiple accounts was unblocked, but not this current one.

I disagree that this is off-topic for my complaint, as it speaks directly to the bias, lack of consensus and stifling of the Cohen article that I am trying to demonstrate. I disagree that hypocrisy is too strong a word, as I did not call you a hypocrite, but am pointing out the contradiction of accusing me of sockpuppetry when it is the pot calling the kettle black (though I acknowledge that Generalrelative is not you, nor you him/her). It is also ironic that to defend your early mistakes you pointed to your inexperience as an editor, yet how unforgiving were you toward the same inexperience on my part regarding the photos. "I made a mistake." And if you don't like the "cheerleader" reference, I can point to some of your comments encouraging Generalrelative. And I'm particularly burned to discover that when I challenged Sexologist in the past, and laid out for him that the activist.journalist Wayne Besen, w-a-y overused as a reference in the Cohen piece (another hypocrisy) never proved that Cohen fit the double life theme of his book that supposed Ex-Gays had secret lives, that he had referenced Cohen's own autobiographical account in his book as his only reference, and fudged the timeline, that it was YOU that I explained that to. Yet there it is, back in the article, stated as a fact, that Cohen had a secret gay life while standing publicly as an Ex-Gay. Never happened, the years don't match, the geographical locations don't match... easy to prove from public records, as Cohen didn't even identify with the Ex-Gay movement until years later, after successful therapy and getting his own degree and becoming a therapist. You have every right to disagree with someone, but your lack of interest in the truth, especially when editing an encyclopedia, has to me the strongest scent of hypocrisy. Truedad21 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia clearly frowns upon revealing personal information about another editor or account that will endanger or expose them to potential harm. This is not that... every reader of this article or talk page deserves to know the truth about how those editing a contentious topic in a contentious way are comporting themselves. And, it is not an "old SPI." The account banned for Sockpuppetry, which previously treated the Cohen article in like manner as you and Generalrelative are now, is apparently still banned. Therefore it is a live issue. Truedad21 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry- "blocked, not banned. But your assertion that it "was resolved and I am unblocked" is apparently untrue. How do you explain that? Truedad21 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Truedad21, this page is for discussing improvements to the Richard A. Cohen article. Please discuss content, not contributors. – bradv 05:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bradv, I understand your concern, and the article certainly needs improvement. I apologize for the lengthy responses to Zenomenoz's reply above. As for the lengthy original post, I have been experiencing one editor removing legitimate biographical content to the effect of skewing the article and violating Wiki standards for BLPs, while claiming to uphold them. He challenged me to make my case on the Talk Page, and this is my clumsy attempt to identify the errors, the violations, and make this case here, in the hope that others more professional than I will weigh in, before presenting it to the arbitration committee. i will read your linked guidelines and improve my inexperienced editorship. I will appreciate, though, if you would read the essence of my 4 points of complaint, evaluate the article, and comment or participate in creating a more neutral, encyclopedic approach to this contentious topic. Thank you. Truedad21 (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have read your complaint – it does not make reference to a single reliable source for any of the changes you want to make, so it is unlikely to be successful. – bradv 06:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

When Wikipedia says regarding BLPs: "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis Wikipedia's), i.e., self-published books by the article's subject ARE a reliable source for his BLP, you honestly believe that stripping a Biographical article of the subject's own books, self-published, reprinted in multiple languages, professionally published, etc. ALL 7 of these books, is encyclopedic, and I've made no case for their inclusion? Truedad21 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it works. Sxologist stays blocked and I edit on my original account. I wasn't blocked for the content of my edits, and all of this is public record, so I don't know what "truth" you think you are exposing. A bunch of other inaccuracies I don't think are worth replying to as it's off topic.

As for the content of the article, you appear to misunderstand what constitutes a reliable source.

As for Besen's source, I'll adjust what is written to match it. He quotes Cohen directly: "I was out running around New York City with my boyfriend, and she was at home taking care of our son, knowing her husband was out with a man" (p.167). This occurred after his early interactions with an 'ex gay' ministry, but he also had a wife at this point. So I guess you are arguing on a technicality, which is fine, the text can be adjusted. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I’ll add, we don’t need to give weight to Cohens claim that he isn’t a proponent of conversion therapy. Suggest you read WP:MANDY. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As I researched and told you years ago... Cohen, in his own autobiography, that as a wounded, unhealed and struggling man in the early 1980s, was running around on his wife, as she knew, and began therapy in 1984. That is a part of his self-confessed story. No dispute about that. But Cohen never identified with the Ex-gay movement, nor took ANY public position speaking out about the possibility of resolving Same-sex attraction through emotional healing until he accomplished it himself- he did a couple of years of professional therapy (nothing to do with the Ex-Gay movement) and pursued authentic, healthy, non-sexual relationships with men, went to school, became a therapist and spoke out publicly for the first time in 1989 or 90. Besen presented no evidence of any earlier involvement with the Ex-gay movement, and I appreciate and commend you for correcting it. Truedad21 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well given the WaPo says that during his teens Cohen spent years in intensive psychiatric treatment unsuccessfully trying to become straight – he was involved in the 'ex gay' conversion therapy scene quite before that. But I've also reworded things to better reflect the source. Best. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This comment, Zenomonoz, is (was) both a dodge and justification: (1) The therapists that Cohen saw in his teens (the 1960s) were traditional Freudian, Jungian, Reichian, Attachment Theorists / Logotherapists, etc., none of whom focused on same-sex attraction or any agenda other than (perhaps) the accepted (though tragically limited) understanding of the DSM that homosexuality was a disorder, thankfully reversed in 1973 by the APA. No "ex-gay ministry" existed at that time; (2) The statement you have since removed, though it remains a lie in Wayne Besen's books, which you still cite as a resource for this article, was that Cohen "publicly portrayed himself as a former homosexual..." DURING his "involvement in an ex-gay ministry." No, Zenomonoz, no public portrayal NOR involvement in ex-gay ministry until 1990, while Cohen's "running around" was in the early 1980s, prior to his successful therapy, attainment of a counseling degree and entering into the therapeutic profession. It was self-confessed by Cohen in a professionally published, autobiographical explanation of his healing and therapeutic approach that you have stripped from his BLP, while allowing Besen's dishonest portrayal which misrepresents and distorts the timeline based upon... NO EVIDENCE.

Despite your removal of the dishonest time distortion from Besen, you have continued to allow the false impression of hypocrisy in Cohen's BLP by placing Besen's statement after Cohen's 1995 departure from the Unification Church, "Cohen had affairs with men, often leaving his wife and children for long periods of time." And, you reference it from Besen's ideologically motivated slam piece, which misrepresents Cohen's experience without proof, rather than Besen's only source, Cohen's own, public, professionally published autobiography (in 2000) https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/coming-out-straight-richard-cohen/1123894405. You could also have referred to the Washington Post, which gets the timeline correct, and also mentions his sexual abuse at the age of 6, but you REMOVED all references to the WaPo article except one: to use the headline to support YOUR definition of Cohen's work as "Conversion Therapy." Oh, and you tried to use it disingenuously above, which led to this comment and my conclusion- You continue to allow (promote?) bias in a BLP, and I am counting on you to work with me to further improve the article by resolving this problem. Thanks Truedad21 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Zenomonoz- I have removed the unnecessarily inflammatory "hypocrisy" comment, and in its place noted the restoration of your account. Apologies for besmirching your editorial efforts. Truedad21 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I scanned this WP:WALLOFTEXT, and practically every sentence my eye fell on was bitching about editors. The only exceptions were one sentence unnecessarily repeating what NPOV says (everybody knows that) and one single article-related thing: deletion of WP:SPS. Can you please condense it to what you actually want, without all the non-article-improvement-related filler? 95% of this section does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post a condensed version of my 4 points. Truedad21 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Since I've been pinged I'll just note that I've taken this article off my watchlist. It's true that I suspect Truedad21 of COI with the article subject, but I took those concerns to the appropriate venue (see this COIN report) and nothing came of it. There's really not much more for me to do here. Generalrelative (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Generalrelative- I do apologize for my loud, long and combative approach (just trying to be heard), but does that mean: (1) You do not intend to respond to the substance of my 4 points, or respond to my questions? (2) You believe the article subject's 7 books- self-published, professionally published, professionally republished in multiple languages, and affirmed as acceptable sources for a BLP by Wikipedia, have no place in a biographical page about him? (3) You feel that the work you have done in stripping the article of these is sufficient and proper? You have no intention of reversing any of your edits? Truedad21 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please leave me alone, Truedad21. I have made my case for why I believe these materials are UNDUE for inclusion, and I dislike repeating myself. If you choose to persist in pushing your case, the only way forward for you is to persuade others that your reasoning is sound. So far it doesn't seem that you have done so, since the only supportive comments you've received were in fact canvassed off-wiki by you (as you admit here). If you cannot find organic support on the talk page, you can always leave a neutral appeal at WP:BLPN. Since you've disclosed a professional COI just below, you really cannot edit this article yourself, and should foreground that COI whenever you post about this subject in the future. Regardless, please leave me out of it. Generalrelative (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  FYI- I did not canvass or direct anyone's comments, nor seek to influence whether they commented or not. What I did do was make a wider number of people aware of this article, most of them professionals and SMEs, and encouraged them to read it, and if they felt so, to express themselves. And again, there have so far been more comments and edits in support of a more balanced article than the one editor rejecting and dismissing those efforts. Truedad21 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  My alleged COI, as I've disclosed, is having met, been trained by and maintaining communication with Cohen and his organization. I am not on their payroll and am not speaking up for them. My main interest is that I work in the field. I am an Attachment-theory, Cognitive and Psychodynamic-trained therapist, with gay-affirming clients and clients with unwanted SSA (and others with mental health issues, compulsive issues, relationship struggles, etc.). I treat all of them by addressing the attachment roots of their struggles. I've helped gay-affirming clients heal their social and parental wounds, while guiding their loved ones to love them for who they are, not for who they want them to be, and I've helped dozens of clients completely eliminate their unwanted Same-sex attractions and awaken authentic heterosexual feelings, get married, have kids, with "0" conflicting feelings inside. This includes some who have commented on this article's Talk Page. I respect my clients' goals and agendas (not my own), and any adult's human right to pursue their own identity. I'm doing this for my clients, for my work, and for an authentically encyclopedic addressing of this subject on Wikipedia. Truedad21 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just foregrounding here, that's not an "alleged" COI. That's a professional COI, full stop. Generalrelative (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I beg to differ with Generalrelative’s incessant, unproven claim of a COI- everything that I stated here about my relationship to the subject of this article has been disclosed in prior comments above, and as Generalrelative acknowledged himself, he “…took [his] concerns to the appropriate venue (see this COIN report) and nothing came of it.” Having heard the man speak, read his books or engaged professionally in learning his approach and methods years ago is not a COI. Having communicated with his organization (in recent years, primarily to research facts and information about this article) is not a COI.  I have been in communication with a variety of schools of therapy and continued training and professional development in a number of therapeutic techniques: Internal Family Systems, Voice Dialogue, the Comprehensive Resource Model, Real Love and Safe Conversations among them. I have no more of a COI contributing to this BLP than I do with any of them. Again, I am not paid by nor have any financial interest in the subject.

  As for my experience using the well-established, Attachment Theory-based, scientifically-validated Cognitive, Psychodynamic and Neurobiological techniques that Cohen advocates in his professionally-published, academically-reviewed, translated into multiple languages- books (which Generalrelative has continually removed from the subject’s biography without establishing consensus), Wiki defines this not as having a professional COI, but rather identifies it with being a Subject Matter Expert (SME) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert, and SMEs are encouraged to contribute. And since I see LGBTQ+ identified clients, as well as those dealing with a variety of sexual and other compulsive issues, respecting each client’s self-determined therapeutic goals and human rights, I have no financial interest in promoting Cohen’s work, only the emotional healing and personal growth of my clients.

  I have fully disclosed months ago, and will respectfully post my case for balance and fairness on this Talk page, seeking consensus before executing any edits. I should point out that while 2 editors other than myself have also sought to implement reasonable, balanced and neutral edits such as including the subject's published works in his own BLP, and a 3^rd has criticized the article’s lack of balance (4 in total including myself), with all of these edits being rejected for “lack of consensus,” those reverting any and every attempt to submit these edits are a grand total of 2 editors- no one else has offered a single comment or expressed any support… so what consensus have they established for such control? Truedad21 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)