Talk:Gary Wilson (writer)

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) Do not believe I removed more than half an article, although it may have looked like it because for ease I copied and pasted. I also believe I substantiated all my changes with citations. I just made a few factchecking and grammatical changes, added a few facts and corrected some misimpressions. happy to take a nother look if you thought it was heavy-handed. Factcheckerina (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC) It looks like one thing they posted about was concern for the website he took over. An IP complaint could not have resulted in the website being given to him, those would be separate issues. The website owner actually gave an interview about what actually happened (i.e., he threatened his business and family if he didn't give Wilson the website). There is now a citation for that. GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG (talk) 16:36, 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) Happy to engage in talk! Factcheckerina (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC) The issue of his stalking is appropriately cited as "accused of". Dying before you get arrested isn't exactly being cleared! GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC) I was unable to find any records of Wilson actually teaching all those classes he claims he taught. If you can find the records, please add them. Then it would make sense to remove that he "claims" to teach them. It appears he might have been at some unlicensed massage school. If that was the case, then we should probably note these were hardly university classes. GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Factcheckerina continues to struggle with requesting citations for claims that already have a citation. Claims that porn is addictive are not attributable to Gary Wilson and do not belong in his biography. He conducted no research and was not referred to in any of those papers. They are not relevant and do not have the content claimed. If you do not like the citation used, please suggest alternatives. Irrelevant citation bombing not a great strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC) This is not irrelevant citation bombing. This is a provision of citations that add context to the claim that he was practising "pseudo science." It's important to note that there are those in the academy, including important journals like Nature, that have also investigated the link between porn and addiction and found it plausible. Most of his website was citations of peer-reviewed articles. Factcheckerina (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC) The claim of pseudoscience was not evaluated in any of those articles. The one cited by Rolling Stone, for example, does specifically say scientists do not find Wilson credible. If you want to argue that porn is addictive, post in the pornography wiki. Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC) The accusations of harassment went both ways. He was harrassed as much as he was of harassing and I think that's importnat to note for balance. Factcheckerina (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) It sounds like no one believed Wilson, suggesting fabrication. No one reputable reported him being harassed. There were several stories of him threatening and harassing others. If I am missing a citation where any reputable journalist gave Wilson the time of day for his claims, please post here. Pulitzer-winning journalist Rob Kuznia wrote the article that Wilson did harass scientists. Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC) I think we need to refer this to conflict dispute resolution. Factcheckerina (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC) You are welcome to but, as noted in "Bad sources" above, you have not provided any supportive source. Any editor will be rightly annoyed and, if I were them, ban you. Better yet, why not just admit you cannot find any supportive source and leave it out until you do? Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Factcheckerina If you cannot find any reputable evidence that Wilson was harassed, isn't it just possible that he was not? I know that is the narrative he wanted to portray, but he stalked and threatened a family of 5 to move across the country too (cited in the article). Wilson was an extremist. These other people were therapists and scientists. He said he was mentally ill. This does not strike you as potentially fake news by Wilson? Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC) I just added the citation from Kelsey Burke's research showing anti-porn activists, including Wilson, repeatedly threatened and harassed others, but were not threatened themselves. Two reputable sources reported Wilson harassment was unidirectional. Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC) You added the citation for a whole book. Could please cite the page number? Thanks you Factcheckerina (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC) I have added evidence that another researcher in the same field tried to trademark the name of his website, knowing that the name was already taken by him but withdrew it. Factcheckerina (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Wilson is not a "researcher", he has no degree Wilson attacked Dr. Prause in this matter also, Dr. Prause did not file anything in opposition to Wilson. IP is not a "threat" or "attacked". That is editorializing and not allowed on wikipedia. Primary sources and/or claiming to conduct your own research on wikipedia is not allowed, for exactly this reason: people lie about the source document. TBsjfQbEuaHRn (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC) The source you post for Wilsn forcing a family to move across country makes no mention of Wilson. Please time stamp the mention of his name if you have it. Thank you Factcheckerina (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC) The entire talk was by the person named in the lawsuit mentioned. The link could not be more direct. This sounds like an effort to suppress. TBsjfQbEuaHRn (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC) The interview is by two people about what happened to one person, there is no mention of Mr. Wilson at all. Please time stamp the mention of Mr. Wilson if you have it. Fact-checking is not suppressing. Factcheckerina (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Karezza

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:

• Gary Wilson YourBrainOnPorn public figure fair use.jpg

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.
@Factcheckerina: claims that Wilson taught biology at Southern Oregon University. Of course, Wilson had no college degree whatsoever, so this is not possible. The source is, obviously, not reliable. This should be removed as it fails the Sagan standard that a random citizen should somehow be a college professor. This simply would never happen, and did not with Gary Wilson. 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 WP:Verifiable in multiple WP:RS. So, it is an objective historical fact about Wilson.

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 WP:ARBGENDER: Wilson re-baptized "pray the gay away" into "pray the porn away". Conversion therapy got a brand new and improved name. You see, since conversion therapy became widely condemned, it can only be offered under the guise of porn addiction therapy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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. doi:10.1007/s13178-023-00846-8. ISSN 1868-9884. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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 neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. Quoted from WP:GOODBIAS.

Besides, DSM-5-TR gave the lie to YBOP in March 2022.

YBOP indiscriminately collects everything which looks like porn research. Journals/publishers which ever made to Beall's List are not reputable, and many other journals cited there are even lower in the pecking order (e.g. pro domo sua journals 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:MEDRS, you're wrong. We follow 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)

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, darryl@rewardfoundation.org 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 MDPI isn't trash, it isn't WP:MEDRS-compliant either. So aggrandizing MDPI is not a wise strategy. YBOP seems to collect any paper, regardless of quality, which seems to imply that porn addiction exists. About astroturfing: Wikipedia does not peddle grassroots knowledge, but 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 WP:BESTSOURCES. While there might be some problems with Watson' paper, the responding paper is far too pro domo sua to 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 Some of Wilson's claims are discussed here: A sympathetic (gasp!) commentary is found here: --Animalparty! (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Well, about As Albert Einstein said, “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” That frames Wilson as the great mind and the American Psychiatric Association as the violent opposition of mediocre minds. Yup, in March 2022 DSM-5-TR gave the lie to Wilson's "preponderance of evidence" claim. Saying this because Wikipedia is biased for WP:PSCI, while the Mormon church is biased against WP:PSCI, at least upon the issue of porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the Deseret News source is likely to be of questionable utility in light of WP:FRIND. Motivated reasoning is all the rage when it comes to pieces that argue "science confirms my bias!" jps (talk) 15:15, 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

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:CITE Prause for WP:V such 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:RS does not WP:V the 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)

But his website is full of research articles Jm33746 (talk) 15:06, 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)

Citation in US Supreme Court

Hi, is it worth noting that Wilson’s work was cited in a supreme court brief Sttammany (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)