Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:28, 2 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard A. Cohen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Richard A. Cohen was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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

This reads like an advert

This article was so jarring to me that I created an account strictly for this purpose. But this article isn't neutral and it seems like one of the editors (Truedad21) is heavily biased towards this man. This article reads like an advertisement not a wikipedia article. IshtarGrace (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@IshtarGrace: please see my message below. Sxologist (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@IshtarGrace: I agree, also just created my account just to comment on this bizarre article. It looks like an editor added some "opposition" to the ideas expressed, i.e. sources on how conversion therapy doesn't work, and calling Cohen's work "controversial", but it makes the article read less like an unbiased summary of this man and more like an argument between two editors. It's no longer an advertisement, but it is a complete mess. Junebugging (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (PST)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: 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)

Expanded edit summary 16 May 2022

• "Cohen's early work as an author and therapist was defined by his personal journey" - This statement, with the term "personal journey" falls under MOS:FLOWERY.
• "This became the basis for his advocacy, writing and therapeutic practice with men and women with unwanted same-sex attraction, and ultimately all genders, orientations and relationship challenges" This falls under WP:PROMO, as it describes his therapeutic practice using language suggestive of an advertisement (e.g., "relationship challenges").
• The two sentences above also work as circular logic (i.e., Cohen's early work as a therapist was defined by his personal journey a journey which became the basis for his therapeutic practice a practice based on that personal journey a journey which defined his early work as a therapist etc. and so forth). As such, these descriptions do not add any substantive information.
• The claim to have "trained" 6,000 "psychologists, psychotherapists, physicians" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary references.
• Duplicate, and common geographic Wikilinks omitted per MOS:SOB.
• The section listing the subject's published works was renamed Select bibliography. As bibliographic listings are references themselves, they do not require separate references.
• The CS1 parameter |url-status= should not contain a valid value (e.g., |url-status=live) when |archive-url= is empty or omitted, since these two parameters work in tandem. The url status should be left blank unless a specific archived url can be used, otherwise an error message will result. The use of invalid values such as |url-status=unfit will also cause an error message.
• "While he was a psychotherapist in Washington state, Cohen was a registered counselor. During his therapeutic practice in Maryland, there was no license requirement for counselors until the time he was transitioning to full time teaching." It's not clear in this sentence why there was no license requirement for counselors until the time Cohen was transitioning to full time teaching, nor is it clear how transitioning to full time teaching affects the legal requirements for licensing of counselors.
• The main information in the lead section was more appropriate for the body of the article, so it's been moved there. The article should be considered a work in progress.

A reminder that anyone connected to the subject of the article ought to review WP:COIE to ensure their edits and/or suggestions comport with the information listed there as a guide.  Spintendo  10:07, 16 May 2022 (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 Misplaced Pages's).

On what grounds are you claiming that the subject’s own written works have no encyclopedic value on his biographical page ( a page 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 rejections of multiple attempts to include them with explanation, 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 goalpost, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 quiet 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 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?

- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 fair, balanced, 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 Misplaced Pages’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” do you have? 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 hypocrisy thickens). 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Former good article nominees
• B-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles