User talk:Truedad21
Welcome Truedad21!
Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,477,668 users!
Hello, Truedad21. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm MrX, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
|
Hi Truedad21! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
06-July-2022[edit]
Hello, Truedad21. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Richard A. Cohen, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Spintendo 04:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Truedad21, given that your only contributions to the project over the course of several years appear to be focused on advancing the reputation of Richard A. Cohen, I think it is reasonable to assume that you have a conflict of interest with this figure and may in fact be him. You have been asked directly about this before but have refused to answer. Given this, I will be reverting your edits to the Richard A. Cohen BLP, and if you persist in editing the article will be bringing the case to either WP:BLPN or WP:AE. You can of course always suggest changes on the article talk page, as mentioned above. Thanks for your understanding, Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Generalrelative (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Generalrelative. FYI, I am definitely NOT Richard Cohen, but I AM a psychotherapist trained in well-accepted Attachment Theory, who has been exposed to Cohen's therapeutic approach through seminar experiences, and I have applied some of the well-established and verified methods Cohen recommended, including Cognitive, Behavioral, Psychodynamic and Neurobiological Trauma techniques, to my clients with a wide variety of issues including Anxiety, Depression, Addictive and Compulsive behaviors, as well as gender identity issues. My clients include those who want to heal the wounds of being bullied, rejected by parents and judged/isolated in their social circles, and affirm their non-cisgender identities, as well as those who wish to resolve the inner cognitive dissonance between their attractions and their values, goals and dreams by exploring the roots of their attachment wounds and subsequent attractions.
- I am open, respect and work with each client's goals, not any agenda. However I do respect what the science has concluded: that sexuality is complex as the APA states: "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors," https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation; that there is no gene for gayness, and that the 5 areas of the genome involved constitute an estimated 8-25% of what may influence sexuality https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene. I know from experience that there are hormonal factors as well, but if such a large % of orientation is "nurture" or life (and attachment) experience, then demanding that someone who experiences this heart-rending struggle can only resolve it by accepting the scientifically disproven "born that way" conclusion, seems to me as intolerant and unfair as the historical demand that non-cis people "must be straight."
- That is where I am coming from, and as long as I am pursuing balance and fairness, how does this perspective constitute a conflict of interest any more than any committed LGBTQ+ activist who disagrees with Cohen's perspective? And moreover how can you justify bastardizing a lead paragraph with sensationalism and bias, against the Wikipedia Manual of style requiring that a lead paragraph be general, a summary of the entire article, include controversy but "with a neutral point of view." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section I will review the standards for contentious topics carefully, but it seems to me that by removing my efforts NOT to deny controversy, but to achieve the informational, factual and NEUTRAL perspective that Wikipedia demands of Lead Paragraphs, you are engaging in biased distortion of the subject and censorship of the subject's own perspective in order to promote and control the presentation in a very un-encyclopedic fashion. That will be the subject of my next message, and I hope we can work out a neutral and fair solution. Truedad21 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Generalrelative- I have carefully reviewed the guidance on "Contentious Topics," and "Biographies of Living Persons," and appreciate being re-introduced to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, which is where I am happy to bring this contentious debate if it continues without compromise. This is especially true since after reading that contentious topics require that, "Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced," it is obvious to me that the "more persistent disruptive editing" of this topic is being done by you, and I am ready to make my case before the Committee, as I have successfully in the past.I seek only balance and fairness, not either promotion nor slander. You don't seem interested in responding to my statement of my own bona fides. I believe neither of us has a conflict of interest, simply different points of view. If you claim that my having agreement with Cohen (based upon personal knowledge and experience) is a conflict, then for certain your point of view (based on opinion and hearsay, NOT personal knowledge), as suggested by the comment on your Talk page User:Generalrelative, is no less of a conflict of interest.
- I will now turn my attention to the bias and censorship in this Wiki article, and make my case for Encyclopedic objectivity:
- I again remind you that the Wikipedia Manual of Style requires that the Lead Paragraph be a brief summary of the entire article (with detail in later sections), that controversy should be included but written "with a neutral point of view." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It is fine to disagree with trivializing a therapeutic approach, and to identify it as controversial or opposed, but NOT to misrepresent, sensationalize and distort that approach by cherry-picking negative information while censoring the approach itself.
- The article relies a bit heavily on arch-enemy Wayne Besen as a source, and in fact, there is a malicious and slanderous lie that concludes the Biography Section of the article: "Cohen appeared in Wayne Bensen's [sic] book Anything But Straight, which documents Cohen's involvement in the ex-gay movement and his affairs with men even as he publicly portrayed himself as a married "former homosexual". I researched and removed this defaming reference in the past, having found: - Cohen was married in 1982, and has been quite open about his homosexual "affairs" during his early marriage. Besen's ONLY sources are Cohen's own autobiographical books, and the Washington Post article referenced in the article. But Besen intentionally fudged the timeline: - Cohen returned to therapy in 1984-85, then completed an MA in Counseling, and only "came out" as a former homosexual and affiliated with the ex-gay movement in 1987, a fact which is easily documented in news articles and the involved organizations' records. There is no evidence of any affairs or falsehoods after that point.
- Besen distorted Cohen's actual experience to fit the premise of his book- that so-called ex-gays are fakes and secret homosexuals. Are you comfortable with lies in a Wikipedia article, or are you genuinely interested in truth? We shall find out, as I will submit to the community, approach the Arbitrators, or whatever it takes to create balance, fairness and encyclopedic objectivity in this article. Truedad21 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for posting on my talk page to let me know about your response. I hadn't seen it. I will take you at your word that you are not affiliated with the article's subject, but we do disagree about what WP:NPOV demands in this case. If you have continued concerns about the article, perhaps the best thing to do will be to post at either WP:BLPN (the biographies of living persons noticeboard) or WP:NPOVN (the neutral point of view noticeboard). As of right now, it does look like your opinion is in the minority at Talk:Richard A. Cohen. Generalrelative (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- One follow-up question: if you are not affiliated with Richard A. Cohen, how did it come to be that you uploaded a photo of him as your "own work"? Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Truedad21: I see that you've responded to Zenomonoz's question but not mine. This is a legitimate concern so I'd appreciate an answer. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Generalrelative: I apologize for the delay in recognizing and responding to your question, which I have answered on the Talk page for the Cohen article (though perhaps not clearly enough) when Sexologist raised the same question. When I first got involved in editing/improving the article 4-5 years ago, I reached out to Cohen's PATH organization, asking for a photo and permission to post it. I later contacted Washington Post writer Sandra Boodman, and attempted to reach Wayne Besen, 2 other article sources, to verify some facts. Posting the photo was 1 of my first edits, if not the 1st, and I was learning. I've no idea how the source was identified as "Own Work." I did not write that, but perhaps I selected an option incorrectly. It was sent to me as a file labeled "Book Cover Photo," and I uploaded it as is. Truedad21 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Truedad21: I see that you've responded to Zenomonoz's question but not mine. This is a legitimate concern so I'd appreciate an answer. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- One follow-up question: if you are not affiliated with Richard A. Cohen, how did it come to be that you uploaded a photo of him as your "own work"? Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Truedad21, some of your arguments are irrelevant to the issues people have with your edits on the Richard A. Cohen page. E.g. the "gay gene" comment has no bearing on your article, but I will say that the lack of a "gay gene" is not proof of your ideas about sexual orientation. There is a social environment, but there is also a vast and largely unexplored non-social environment which includes prenatal hormones and things like maternal immune responses which have been implicated in sexual orientation. Refer to Bailey et al. 2016 for this point, or the summary from the Association for Psychological Science. You claim you don't have an "agenda" yet you are making inaccurate claims as if they are scientific consensus. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Zenomonoz- Slow down there pardner! My comment was solely to address the question of whether I have a conflict of interest in editing this page. I stated who I am, my level of affiliation with the subject (as Wiki standards require), and where I am coming from (which ARE relevant to the issues raised)... I am NOT debating the issue of whether change is possible, and points of view do NOT equal conflict of interest, not to mention that I acknowledged the role of hormones in the same post. To be fair, the 8-25% hereditary article I referenced is based on the largest study ever conducted (about 1/2 million participants in 2019), but it is hardly pristeen (based upon DNA samples from 23&me, etc., with permission from "self-identified participants who experienced SSA). My point is that there does seem to be a significant role for nurture, which relates with my Attachment Theory training. The debunking of the innate, immutable, "born that way" ideology IS pretty much scientific consensus. And, I agree with non-cis activists that none of the science necessarily matters, as it is a personal decision and a human rights issue... and those who wish to explore change have the same human rights. Truedad21 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand genetics or heritability. Left handedness has a heritability of around 20%, yet it is innate. You need to read more. As I stated, many environmental influences are biological. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is true that despite some study and schooling, my degrees in Social Science, Psychology and Education do not qualify me as a "hard" scientist. Rather than argue the point further with you here, I will stand by the APA statement that I quoted above from this page: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation. In the midst of their compassionate, affirming and detailed presentation of this complex subject, the APA, a pioneer in de-stygmatizing LGBTQ+ individuals and protecting their rights and freedoms, also stated that, "...no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." It is also then reasonable to conclude that efforts to claim the contrary may indicate an agenda. Truedad21 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just because there is no strong for *one* particular theory, doesn't mean all hypotheses are equally plausible. This review by the Association for Psychological Science summarises the scientific consensus (consensus is based on evidence, not what members of committees vote on. The APA hasn't released a review in many many years. I hope you find the APS review useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Zenomonoz- I acknowledge my limited knowledge of genetics, and in fact, your comment misperceives and distorts the largest study ever conducted on the genetic basis of same-sex attractions, and the many articles written on it. Left-handedness is based upon a specific gene with a specific location on the genome, which is traceable and "readable," leading to a 50/50 chance of being either right or left handed. The study I referred to found NO genes that directly determined sexual preferences, NO possibility to determine someone's orientation by looking at their genes, and that the 5 areas of the genome that repeatedly seem to be "involved" (genes for hormone regulation, among others), were estimated to have between 8-25% influence on subjects' sexual preferences. This study did not show or discuss heritability, and your 20% example is misleading. Truedad21 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- 50/50 chance of being left or right handed for those who carry the gene only. Truedad21 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Left handedness is not based on a single gene, it is polygenic. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I have already acknowledged my own limited knowledge, and was not making a point about which or how many genes are involved in left-handedness or any heritable trait. The point I am making, clearly stated above with no need to repeat or belabor, is that you have conflated two issues and confused the meaning of the DNA study I referred to by a false comparison. On the other hand I do appreciate the Bailey study you referenced, and the general complexity of the issue. Truedad21 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is true that despite some study and schooling, my degrees in Social Science, Psychology and Education do not qualify me as a "hard" scientist. Rather than argue the point further with you here, I will stand by the APA statement that I quoted above from this page: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation. In the midst of their compassionate, affirming and detailed presentation of this complex subject, the APA, a pioneer in de-stygmatizing LGBTQ+ individuals and protecting their rights and freedoms, also stated that, "...no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." It is also then reasonable to conclude that efforts to claim the contrary may indicate an agenda. Truedad21 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand genetics or heritability. Left handedness has a heritability of around 20%, yet it is innate. You need to read more. As I stated, many environmental influences are biological. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- A point of view is also not an "agenda." Truedad21 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Zenomonoz- as I explained, my "arguments" were included above to respond ONLY to the question of whether I have a COI. Most of the issues people have raised about previous edits, which my arguments are not intended to address, are about being too promotional, inappropriately using Cohen's websites and publications as sources, etc. I have responded to these legitimate criticisms accordingly, and they do not mitigate the many biased edits that are still in the current version of the article. Truedad21 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Zenomonoz- Slow down there pardner! My comment was solely to address the question of whether I have a conflict of interest in editing this page. I stated who I am, my level of affiliation with the subject (as Wiki standards require), and where I am coming from (which ARE relevant to the issues raised)... I am NOT debating the issue of whether change is possible, and points of view do NOT equal conflict of interest, not to mention that I acknowledged the role of hormones in the same post. To be fair, the 8-25% hereditary article I referenced is based on the largest study ever conducted (about 1/2 million participants in 2019), but it is hardly pristeen (based upon DNA samples from 23&me, etc., with permission from "self-identified participants who experienced SSA). My point is that there does seem to be a significant role for nurture, which relates with my Attachment Theory training. The debunking of the innate, immutable, "born that way" ideology IS pretty much scientific consensus. And, I agree with non-cis activists that none of the science necessarily matters, as it is a personal decision and a human rights issue... and those who wish to explore change have the same human rights. Truedad21 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for posting on my talk page to let me know about your response. I hadn't seen it. I will take you at your word that you are not affiliated with the article's subject, but we do disagree about what WP:NPOV demands in this case. If you have continued concerns about the article, perhaps the best thing to do will be to post at either WP:BLPN (the biographies of living persons noticeboard) or WP:NPOVN (the neutral point of view noticeboard). As of right now, it does look like your opinion is in the minority at Talk:Richard A. Cohen. Generalrelative (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
January 2024[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Richard A. Cohen. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)