Talk:Gary Wilson (writer)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until December 15, 2024 at 16:46 UTC. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gary Wilson (author) with [1092001054 this edit] on 7 June 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Removals
All comments except those by Factcheckerina are sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeuroSex. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Factcheckerina: You cannot remove over half of an article without discussing and justifying your changes. Many were grossly inaccurate, almost like you are one of his followers. You are going to get this article locked. Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To begin, Wilson's article was recommended for retraction, there was a national article written about it by a reliable source. You cannot just delete it because you don't like it. Then you stated Wilson "later won" the website? He did not. I have no idea what that is referring to and you provided no source. Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC) @Factchekerina continues to delete content they do not like without engaging in talk, including reliable sources. User may need to be blocked for malicious editing. Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
|
Karezza
More socking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a huge history of his Karezza devotee. Is this worth a separate section? For example:
|
- Yup, agree, Wilson thought that orgasms ruin one's marriage and likely send one to hell. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Cult
Karezza is not a cult since it's not "one church, one faith, one leader". It's a loose network of like-minded people. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree Karezza definitely not a cult, more like tantric sex, a practice. Factcheckerina (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, a cult is organized, and it enforces a rigid religious ideology, wherein dissent/heresy are not tolerated. If anyone sees Wilson as a guru, they are the nofappers, rather than those who practice karezza. If those who practice karezza shun porn, they shun it for different reasons than nofappers. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- E.g. adepts of the New Age aren't called cultists not because of their ideas, but because they don't belong to cult organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Candidate alt image https://www.covenanteyes.com/lemonade/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Gary-Wilson.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Fake credentials
More NeuroSex socking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ The source for the fact he taught at Southern Oregon University is TIME magazine. https://time.com/magazine/us/4277492/april-11th-2016-vol-187-no-13-u-s/ This is a reliable source.Factcheckerina (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Karezza
He was in national news repeatedly for promoting "karezza". Request add. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/karezza-lovemaking-orgasm-strengthens-marriages-advocates/story?id=16743124 http://abcnewsradioonline.com/health-news/can-sex-without-orgasm-bolster-marriages.html https://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/from_kosher_sex_to_love_maps_5_tips_for_keeping_your_sex_life_hot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Added. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Animosity towards orgasms
Such claim is
This is what biased
means: Wikipedia is biased for real historical facts.
Besides, the couple had the website https://reuniting.info , where they pleaded against orgasm in full detail. So, this isn't something made up by the mainstream press. Still available at https://archive.org .
And they had articles (meanwhile deleted) at https://psychologytoday.com . tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: Animosity is a loaded term. Where exactly is "the couple shared an intense animosity towards orgasms" verified? The 4 purported sources do not contain the word "animosity". Two of the them are written by Wilson's wife, and the nearest to 'animosity' is her Huffpost article: "In fact, we're so hooked on harmony that we actually resent it a bit when orgasm does sneak up on us." (note this same article includes the statement "as much as I loved orgasm, I was ready to try anything that promised greater harmony"). Animosity means a strong feeling of dislike or hatred. Intense implies an even stronger version. Do you think this word choice is neutral, objective and appropriate, or emotional and leading? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Animalparty: Feel free to edit it to something else, but her own book is clear: having orgasms will ruin your relationships.
- For someone who followed the dispute for years, it is frustrating that so little of it made it to WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)]
- So, yeah, Gary Wilson was fiercely against PMO. Not because of PM, but because of O. PM being poor man's source of O. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration
If you wonder what this article has to do with
- This reads like a conspiracy theory and I challenge you to back it up. MarshallKe (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Sex addiction is also used as a way to pathologize homosexual behavior." https://www.natashaparker.org/How-Concepts-of-Sex-Addiction-and-Porn-Addiction-are-Failing-Clients-2.pdf
- See also https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog/talking-sex-and-relationships/202105/the-harm-12-step-sex-addiction-programs
- And https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/14/health/sex-addiction-real-or-not-kerner/index.html tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- And Droubay, Brian A.; White, Anarie (6 July 2023). "Sexual Orientation, Homophobic Attitudes, and Self-Perceived Pornography Addiction". Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. ]
Biased writing
the sentence 'The purported science behind NoFap's activities is said to come from Wilson,according to historian Brian M. Watson, who, "with no scientific training or background ...has made a career peddling pseudoscience." is biased. if you read the ybop page, it's far from pseudoscience, it's a collection with pages and pages of psychological research by reputable sources. i do not think it fair that one historian who seems to be writing with a certain political motive is quoted with such an ad hominem here.Koenvani (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koenvani (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own
WP:GOODBIAS.- Besides, DSM-5-TRgave the lie to YBOP in March 2022.
- YBOP indiscriminately collects everything which looks like porn research. Journals/publishers which ever made to pro domo suajournals of fleeting existence, or published in countries wherein the clergy/politicians do not allow for real freedom of speech, or published in China, which has the reputation that no medical intervention ever tested was found to be unhelpful, however bizarre it sounds for real MDs).
- There is no denial that many people who consume porn have a problem. The debate is however about whether that problem is porn addiction or something else (e.g. borderline or OCD). Re-framing real mental disorders as something that can be handled by reboot coaches means in this context denying people proper medical care. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- His website is full of research 24.53.78.194 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you think that quantity of studies wins over WP:BESTSOURCES, not crappy sources.
- He claimed that the preponderance of evidence shows there is such a thing as porn addiction. DSM-5-TR gave him the lie about one year ago. You might not like it, but the DSM is a paramount WP:RS for psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)]
- If you think that quantity of studies wins over
- His website is full of research 24.53.78.194 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
In the TGPE video, Wilson states that internet porn use is associated with various clinical disorders including ADHD, depression, social anxiety and OCD. He opposes the prescription of medications to treat these disorders and states, "Guys don’t realize that they can overcome these symptoms simply by changing their behaviour [masturbation to internet porn]." As someone trained in psychology, I find this extremely problematic and entirely unethical.
— Dr. Jason Winters- Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Pornography Industry's Disinformation Campaign on
- Addiction Recovery Resources
- Darryl Mead
- The Reward Foundation, [email protected] Jm33746 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- That the pornography industry funds Prause, Winters, and Ley, it is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Sorry to be so blunt, but peddling conspiracy theories at Wikipedia isn't taken lightly. E.g., with Deep Throat (film), the mob controlled its distribution and made a lot of money, but the pornographers themselves did not get filthy rich. The idea that there is a lot of money to be won with selling pornography through the internet is probably 20 years out of date. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I read that paper. Ignoring that NoFap is anti-sex, a hotbed for radicalization, teems with threats of violence, and misogynistic is naive at least. Ignoring that Watson is substantially right that Wilson/YBOP teem with pseudoscience is also naive at least (who would be the judge of that? the DSM). Yup, Wilson claimed that there is a preponderance of evidence that porn addiction exists, but the DSM-5-TR gave him the lie. While WP:CHOPSY knowledge. This was never meant as a platform for grassroots activism, in fact Wikipedia hates WP:Activists. Thinking that Watson, Prause, and Ley are in charge of APA is ludicrous. The real bulwark against NoFap is APA, not Watson, Prause, and Ley. The three scholars might get a lot of press, but they aren't as powerful as Mead imagines.
- What he does not understand is that at Wikipedia many sources never win against pro domo suato be taken at face value. Its imperative seems to be "Wilson/NoFap can do no harm" (cf. "the king can do no harm").
- Why is APA against NoFap?
- self-diagnosed condition;
- self-therapy;
- the 90 days reboot therapy is fanciful;
- the real danger is seeking to treat depression or psychosis with reboot therapy. And that is, despite Mead's protest, rightly labeled as pseudoscience and quackery. Gary Wilson's advocacy for treating mental illness through nofapping is the paragon of quackery. Claims such as "Symptoms of arousal addiction mimic ADHD, social anxiety, depression, and OCD; Physicians frequently misdiagnose these conditions as their primary problem rather that a secondary due to internet" are utterly irresponsible, and they remain utterly irresponsible even if we ignore everything Prause, Winters, Watson, and Ley ever published. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
some sources
Just for reference: a recent academic book chapter by Lucas Gottzén analyzes Wilson's writing[1] Some of Wilson's claims are discussed here:[2] A sympathetic (gasp!) commentary is found here: [3] --Animalparty! (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:PSCI, at least upon the issue of porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)]
- @Animalparty: Gottzén does not say whether Wilson is scientifically accurate or not. He just employs Wilson's writing to address a message aimed at fellow masculinity studies scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.theinterrobang.ca/article?aID=9407 Jm33746 (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- ISBN 9781003219613.
- .
- ^ Hess, Jacob (3 August 2022). "Perspective: When science, not religion, takes down pornography". Deseret News.
Suicide
How do we know it was Wilson who committed suicide Jm33746 (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Prause (although I generally respect her) has an axe to grind against Wilson. So, I would not WP:Vsuch claim.
- And, yes, I saw her paper, but it is unclear to me what Stebbins 2022 is supposed to mean. Wilson is not named inside her paper. So, even assuming she knows what she speaks about, that WP:Vthe claim.
- In other respects: Wilson did not claim to be a graduate, nor did he claim to be a professor. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a scientific researcher
@Jm33746: He was not a scientific researcher, he published only one paper, in a low-reputation journal, and the paper got lambasted on several issues by those in the know. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jm33746: It could be, Wikipedia is also crammed with scientific references, yet Wikipedia editors aren't by default scientists. Meaning: the overwhelming majority of the papers from that website weren't authored by him. Same as a stamps collector is not a stamps designer.
- In order to be more clear: the standard for being a researcher is publish or perish, and AFAIK this clearly shows he wasn't a researcher. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)