Talk:Richard Cohen (therapist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I have changed the website to reflect a more unbiased picture of Mr. Cohen. Several things on the site were completely false, and others simply slanderous. Cohen has never used "rubberband therapy"; the new version of his book does not have a foreward by Dr. Laura; the quote by Wayne Besen is slanderous and, at best, taken out of context; I have no way of knowing whether or not the Wesleyan denomiation practices nude psychotherapy, but this is, at best, irrelevant, and Mr. Cohen never had any knowledge of it while he was in the denomination; Cohen did not do change seminars for the unification church; and he does not advocate that there are only 2 causes of homosexuality. Thank you for maintaining a non-slanderous site.--IHF06 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


From VfD:

I'd like to nominate the psychotherapist listed on the Richard Cohen page. Only 181 google hits for "Richard Cohen +psychotherapist--I challenge his notability. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:59, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Coming Out Straight] which has a forward by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, which helps make him more noteworthy if not admirable. KillerChihuahua 21:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Controversial, expandable, Unification Church tie-in, etc. --Gary D 23:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Edited for NPOV and added some things. Certainly not a very noteworthy character to be sure but also not necessarily worthy of a delete.--Deglr6328 05:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I would abstain pending a major re-write of the article, but I'll bite... I vote to keep on the grounds that's he's noteworthy enough for at least a major mention or stub. Kaelus 07:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Deleted from article:

Cohen used to belong to an organization called The Wesleyan Christian Community Church which was ejected from the United Methodist Church for practicing nude psychotherapy. Cohen has said of his time in the organization, which has been referred to by some as a cult, by saying "It was like Paradise".[1]

Why link someone to an "ejected" organization? Is there any reason to mention this, other than to discredit Cohen?

Wikipedia articles should not endorse or discredit people.

If there is a movement "out there" which hates Cohen personally and/or despises what he stands for and/or opposes what he does, then:

  • please mention these opponents by name
  • describe their POV(s) about Cohen

As for the damaging quotation, I deleted that because it just makes him look crass. (Wikipedia needs a policy on damaging quotations and other discrediting tactics.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Balance dictates that editors not remove items just because they reflect unfavorably on their heros. I've returned these items to the article: they are attributed and true. I leave Ed to find and name "opponents", if he considers it important. - Outerlimits 16:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:POV policy requires that "items" that reflect unfavorably (or even favorably) on ANYONE be properly sourced.

They are sourced. One is the reason there's a footnote on the article. - Outerlimits 23:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to include something for the purposes of making him look bad or simply to discredit his work, then you need to say:

  • who holds the POV that he (or his work) is bad, and
  • (if you can) WHY that feel this way.

Random disparaging info, included as a disparaging tactic (and in evasion of NPOV policy) is not required by any "balance" policy I'm aware of. Have things changed since I originally co-wrote the NPOV policy? I haven't been away that long, have I?

If there is a policy page which mandates the inclusion of the text I just deleted, please point it out. Otherwise, I'm going to delete it (over and over). It's not about heroes, it's about NPOV. You either support the encyclopedia's goals, or you're a ... well ... or you are working against its goals. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is a biography, and it is reasonable to summarize, in an NPOV manner, the verifiable events in a person's life. In the case of the disputed sentence, the fact that the group was ejected from another church is a side issue, and it's not clear that they were ejected while Cohen was a member. Therefore, I'd suggest that it be left out. But Cohen's association with the group is worth noting. Ed, would you like to try to re-write it in an NPOV manner? That'd be preferable to deleting sourced info. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. To facilitate this, I've returned the censored material. If Ed thinks it needs a rewrite, let him rewrite the material he's uncomfortable with rather than deleting it. And if he feels strongly that he wants to continue to censor it - even to the point of re-writing various policy pages! - I would suggest he make a "request for comments" rather than continue to erase and re-add it. - Outerlimits 23:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did a re-write myself. What I think would be helpful would be to go beyond this one odd anecdote and see if there's any more relevant info from the Besen book that can be summarized. The rest of it appears to be from his authorized biography. As for the Wesleyans, it'd be helpful to know how long he was involved so that its significance can be judged by the reader. Do you have the reference at hand? Also, like any bio, this should have some basic biographical info, some of which is missing - birth, date and place, professional educaiton, etc. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fall 2005 rewrite

I'd like the article on Cohen to say something about his views and practices. Right now, it's slanted entirely toward a critique of him. I'll start by extracting some of the raw facts from the criticism section.

The article should explain why he regards homosexuality as a disorder, as well as how he goes about attempting to transition volunteers out of it.

That would give the criticism section some traction, i.e., something for them to rebut. As of now, the man just looks like a discredited freak or charlatan: "He teaches things which all right-thinking people condemn" rather than "He teaches A, B, and C + here is why prominent bodies disagree with these teachings." Uncle Ed 16:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay writer category?

Is it appropriate to categorize him as a gay writer since he no longer identifies as gay and claims to now be hetrosexual? Beno1000 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERichard_Cohen_%28therapist%29_e020.html"