Talk:James Cantor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV

This article, if it remains, must be made neutral. In particular, it leaves out at least two relevant details.

First, it doesn't detail his extensive self-promotion on Wikipedia. This ranges from writing himself into the article space as one of the most notable researchers[1] under a concealed conflict of interest[2]; to yesterday's failed attempt to mischaracterize his actions to the Administrator's Noticeboard[3] as part of an attack on an Admin who commented that he was self-promoting.

The equally notable Dr. John Krystal, the chief editor[4] that BBC spoke with about pedophilic brains one month prior[5] hasn't received much mention on Wikipedia, much less his own article. The difference might boil down to promotion.

Secondly, his sexual orientation, verifiable in reference #2[6], should be mentioned. It is important when evaluating his results and motivations. This is particularly true for presentations where all other paraphilias are intermixed with pedophilia, except for homosexuality (e.g. [7].)

Normally, these points would be considered personal, but since this article is about a person, they are relevant and necessary if the article is to be neutral. BitterGrey (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! I'm not often accused of NPOV editing... If you have WP:RS about Cantor's WP editing, go ahead and add it to the article, otherwise that doesn't even belong on this talk page but on User talk:James Cantor. Note however, that inserting references to ones own work are not necessarily self-promotion or COI, see WP:COS. It indeed looks like we need an article on John Krystal (and as editor of a much more important journal, John's arguably more notable), but whether or not we have an article on Krystal is immaterial here (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I did not include anything in this article about Cantor's sexual orientation (for which there are, indeed RS), as none of the RS seemed to indicate that this has any impact on his work. However, with straight persons, bios often include a sentence like "Jones lives with his wife in Boston", so we could add something like that here, too. I do suggest, however, that you remove the POV tag unless you show that I actually distorted things and did not add neutral stuff to WP. --Crusio (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Crusio, please relax. There is every reason to believe that you presented what you had in good faith, not knowing that it was only one side of the story. Please understand that since biographies of living persons aren't the place for bold editing, I decided to raise these issues on the discussion page before making changes. Let's give the discussion a little time. BitterGrey (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from somebody who added a cat and you adding a tag, I'm the only editor here. So I could not but take it personal when you write that the fact Cantor got an article but Krystal not, "boils down to promotion". But you have clarified my good faith so let's leave it at that. I do think the POV tag should go. If there's published scientific criticism on his work as KimvdLinde say below, that should be added to the article. The WP stuff should stay at WP (which cannot be a source for itself). But the fact that an article is only a stub and needs tobe expanded is not a reason to slam a POV tag on it. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bittergrey, I just had a look at your talk page and I see that you have had disagreements with Cantor about WP editing in the past (as could be expected perhaps from the diffs presented above). I suggest that you refrain from editing here, this certainly makes you an involved party with a COI. Given this, I'm going to remove the POV tag now. --Crusio (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So you decided to ignore input supported by diffs just because it came from me? That is inappropriate, an assumption of ill will. I wasn't involved in any of the examples given above. As for a COI, I'm neither here for financial gain nor to promote my career. Your tendency to take comments about the article as personal accusations suggests a sense of ownership. Now, if we can, let's keep from getting personal and give the discussion a little time. BitterGrey (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Your difs only concern editing on WP and as I made clear above, I already decided to ignore them before I had seen that you had a personal history with Cantor as an editor (and KimvdLinde agreed with that below, so I'm not alone in this). If you have issues with User:James Cantor's editing, there are his talk page and several forums (like ANI) to address that, but it doesn't belong at James Cantor the article about the person, unless his editing pattern has been the subject of non-WP reliable sources. I did not assume ill will, I just said that given your previous disagreements with User:James Cantor mean that you'd better refrain from editing the article about James Cantor yourself. As for financial interest from your part or your career, I have no idea what you mean with that as nobody has said anything in that direction. As for ownership, my position has nothing to do with having created this stub. It's a BLP and at any BLP I would react like this. If someone is personally involved with the subject of an article (either in a positive or negative way), then they have a COI and would better refrain from editing that article themselves. --Crusio (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think his work at WP is not worth adding. I see it as someone who just needs to learn the ropes at WP, which is hard at times. I think there are sufficient other things to be added, including scientific criticism that has been published. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't include much abut his scientific work (I only intended to create a stub), as this is not my field and I am really not enough interested in sexology to find out enough to expand this stub. I'm happy to leave that to others. I mostly edit articles related to academic journals and that's how I got here (when Cantor became an EIC, which makes him notable according to WP:PROF). --Crusio (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kim, I looked in the Web of Science for articles that cited the 2008 white matter study (currently the only research mentioned in the article) and didn't see any title that appeared to be especially critical of this work. However, I only looked at titles and didn't read the papers, it's not really my field after all and I'm not that interested in this stuff... But either the criticism of Cantor's work you mentioned was on other things he did or I missed something in the articles that I scanned in WoS. I didn't scan all articles citing his work (there are about 500...) either. If you can indicate where those criticisms were published, I'll try to incorporate that in the article. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just added some of the criticism, including one piece which characterizes him as part of "an activist minority in the mental health field." I also added info on some of his other activism. I'll add more when I get a chance. Jokestress (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Given your tempestuous history with Cantor, Jokestress, it really is not best that you edit an article about him. I'm sure that's one of the reasons he doesn't edit your article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the reason I long ago pledged not to edit Andrea James.— James Cantor (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Section on Cantor's activism

I'd like to hear what other editors think about including James Cantor's long-time activism, not just as "an activist minority in the mental health field" sourced in the article, but as an activist for gay causes in general. It’s clearly an important part of his work.

1. He states that "Both gay activists and anti-gay activists claim that science is on their side." This is demonstrated by his frequent statements to the press that science (usually his own and his friends') backs up his opinions: “Although there have been claims that child molestation is a result of homosexuality (or of celibacy), there is absolutely no basis in science for either conclusion.” See his opinion piece Is there a link between homosexuality and Church abuse? (inexplicably removed by User:Crusio. Cantor has expressed “gay outrage” over comments equating child abuse with homosexuality (sourced in article).

2. This article was marked NPOV because it did not include information on Cantor’s activism or the controversy it has engendered. User:Crusio unilaterally removed that tag and has removed nearly all citations that demonstrate Cantor’s activism.

3. The article should cover his long-time involvement in the APA's Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues. Since the earliest days of his career, Cantor has written letters on behalf of the division, organized events, written book reviews for his friends, and even won an award from them. Div 44 regularly acknowledges its activist roots and agenda, such as a piece called “Integrating Psychology with Political Activism” which appeared in this year’s spring newsletter. [8]

4. According to sex columnist Dan Savage, Cantor’s most recent activism was to help publicize an unsuccessful boycott of the APA when they held their 2010 convention at the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, because the hotel's owner had donated money in support of the California Marriage Protection Act, [9]

5. Should we include this quotation from a paper presented by Dr. Joelle Ruby Ryan at the 2009 International Foundation for Gender Education conference: [10]

James Cantor, a sexologist from the CAMH clique, apparently spends a great deal of time trolling on Wikipedia. He is, it seems to me, obsessed with trying to spin every entry that concerns transgender people and especially theories of trans etiology to conform to Blanchardian and Zuckerian ideology. He even spends time trolling on Lynn Conway’s biography page to overstate the importance of the Bailey controversy in the face of Conway’s many and varied life accomplishments, and to demonize her for bravely trying to expose Bailey’s specious book. Not content to only focus on the virtual realm, Cantor also attacked a workshop on trans issues conducted by Kyle Scanlon, Trans Programmes Coordinator at the 519 Church Street Community Centre in Toronto.

That last incident led to disciplinary measures by his employer. For another take on Cantor’s views on sex and gender minorities, there’s this piece in Trans-Health magazine. [11]

6. I propose we incorporate the material above into a section devoted to his activism. There’s already plenty, and I am sure he will engage in more as time goes on. He's not the only scientist/activist in the world, and there's no shame in being both. For instance, one of Cantor’s very first edits on the project was altering the article on Lynn Conway to include transsexual activism among the introductory identifers. It only seems appropriate that we do that in the first sentence here as well, perhaps using the Franklin quotation as the source.

7. Finally, I believe it’s also important to include a quotation about his sense of self, since that seems to come up in even the briefest of profiles. He says in the recent Dingfelder piece, “I feel like one of the most rooted-for scientists in the world." That puffery seems very notable to me. I'm not sure anyone else has ever made such a claim.

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have numbered the above points to make them easier to refer to. (I have no problem with their being reverted.)

1. Well, of course. If science didn't back up my opinion, I'd change my opinion. (Moreover, nothing in the source says anything about "gay outrage.")

2. (Better discussed by others.)

3. There is no RS for this. I was active in APA when I was a grad student, and only very briefly with the LGBT Division, other than to participate on their listserv. I won an award for my work on LGBT issues during my student years (which were outside the LGBT division), I wrote a letter expressing research findings while I was a science officer, and I wrote a book review for their newsletter after I completed my one-year term as science officer. (I've written one other book review in my career, for a book about sex addiction, having nothing at all to do with APA.) I have nothing to hide in any of my participations in anything, of course, but to say "long-time involvement" with APA or the division, or to claim that I personally support everything printed in the division’s newsletter is inaccurate and fails both WP:V and WP:NPOV.

4. Crusio's description was correct; Jokestress’ description is inaccurate. (Nothing in the source says anything about success.)

5. Is Jokestress seriously asking if non-RS comments posted on known attack sites be cited on a BLP? I understnad that such additions to WP pages lead to some very serious consequences and should be considered very carefully. Writing about me that any "incident led to disciplinary measures by his employer" is another blatant violation of BLP. It is both untrue and unverifiable by any RS.

6. I agree that there is no such shame in such a combination. NPOV, however, require that these be receive WP:DUE relative to their existance among RS's, not in WP:OR.

7. I do feel like one of the most rooted for scientists in the world. As is clear from the original context, my statement has nothing to do with me, but with how important my topics of study (pedophilia) appear to be to society. That's hardly puffery; it’s actually a sense of responsibility. (That's how I meant my statment, anyway).

— James Cantor (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James, you mentioned being a science officer; was that with Division 44? BitterGrey (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The 2002-2003 year.— James Cantor (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In order:

1. Good, we agree gay activists claim science is on their side, and you claim science is on your side regarding gay issues. The term "gay outrage" appears in the title of the cited article that characterizes your response to claims by religious figures linking homosexuality and pedophilia.
2. (blank)
3. I'm not sure why you want to downplay your role in APA, which is well-established and non-controversial. Also well-established is the organization's activist agenda, both in general and within Division 44. Your early published advocacy was all about fomenting political change that would benefit gays in the field. Most of that happened in the context of APA.
4. We can strike the word "success" if needed, but since the activism you publicized did not lead to a change of venue, I'm not sure it would be characterized as successful activism in terms of the key goal.
5. The article includes papers James Cantor has presented at conferences, so I'm not sure why Dr. Ryan's paper shouldn't be cited.
6. Cool, so we can mention "activist" in the lede, using your Conway edits as a precedent and the Franklin quotation as a source.
7. Cool, so we can include that as well.

Sounds as if we are basically in agreement, except for the scope of your 20-year involvement in APA, up to and including your efforts to publicize the 2010 boycott/protest. Jokestress (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1. No, that's not what I said. (Nor was CNN reporting on my reaction, but on that of the gay community at large.)

3. No, that's not what I said. Correcting WP:UNDUE is not downplaying.

4. No. Indeed, any characterization at all is WP:OR. (And, incidentally, the goal was owner of the hotel, who was successfully vacated.)

5. If you are not sure, then you should re-read WP:Verifiability: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves".

6. No, that's not what I said. Putting such a statement in the lede rather than mentioning it in the article produces WP:UNDUE.

7. No, that's not what I said. It can be included appropriately, but cannot be included inappropriately.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are conditions listed under WP:SELFPUB. If it is unduly self-serving, it goes. There are some non-RS's cited, such as http://csbn.concordia.ca. Perhaps the more important question is whether they are contested or not. BitterGrey (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If it works...

Christopher Connor inserted a section[12] that everyone seemed to be OK with, averting one potentially problematic issue. Now it and it's two references are gone[13], with no discussion. While picking a fight here would be really really easy, those seeking a fight are encouraged to go elsewhere. I say we put it back some version of it and discuss adjustments instead of deleting it.BitterGrey (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jokestress (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Everything in a BLP needs a good source, and preferably a secondary source, or the subject himself. The material I removed was largely unsourced. It's particularly problematic to add someone else's name without a source. BG, could you post here what you want to add, and what the sources say that support it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The material you removed was entirely sourced to a secondary source, quoting the article subject. Please put Christopher Connor's material back. Jokestress (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually, given a long and detailed history that you might not be aware of, I think it important to re-advocate a section that someone else wrote. There will certainly be much arguing and probably a few edit wars in the near future of this article. I fully intend to embrace peace where it could be found. Christopher Connor's section was such a place.

Cantor is gay and met his partner Neil Pilkington, also a psychologist, after giving a speech at the 1991 convention of the American Psychological Association about the challenges of being a gay graduate student. BitterGrey (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit said:

Cantor is gay and met his partner [name removed] after giving a speech at the 1991 convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) about the challenges of being a gay graduate student.

I can't see any mention of a name in the sources. Could you post here what the sources say that supports the edit, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are asking if "Random Sample: James M. Cantor" is actually about James M. Cantor? I guess it is possible that there are two J. M. Cantors in the APA... BitterGrey (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)SlimVirgin, you and User:Crusio have removed all the reliable sources: [14]. Cantor's most famous paper was co-written with his partner Neil Pilkington. It's called "Perceptions of Heterosexual Bias in Professional Psychology Programs: A Survey of Graduate Students." That was removed by User:Crusio. That relatively well-known paper is part of his long-running activism, as is Cantor's involvement in the 2010 APA boycott mentioned by Dan Savage (also removed by User:Crusio). His partner's name is not controversial. "Neil Pikington. My partner. pillar, and leaning post. I continue to be amazed that he knows both how to push me to start projects I avoid and finish those over which I obsess. I can never express how grateful I am for the comfort and growth that come from his ability to see through me so easily." [15] His gayness and his activism are essential parts of his life and work. It would be great if you'd acknowledge these uncontroversial facts. Jokestress (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem adding the name; in fact we can add it to the infobox. But it must be sourced, and the source must be added after the sentence, as an inline citation. And we mustn't go beyond the source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SlimVirgin, might I ask you how many of those references you have read? I understand that the race to the highest edit count[16] might not leave much time for research. Congrats on making #87[17] with over a hundred thousand edits. As for myself, I've always valued quality over quantity. I'm going to bed now.BitterGrey (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

In response to the photo request, I have made one available to the public domain on wikimedia: James_Cantor_at_UoT_2010.JPG
— James Cantor (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP and NPOV issues

Editors interested in working on this page may want to consider the following.

1. Jokestress wrote that I am “in mental health associations which advance the political aims of gays and lesbians within their profession.” The RS does not support that.
2. Jokestress wrote that “Cantor is active in the APA's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.” The RS does not support that.
3. Jokestress wrote that I “helped coordinate an unsuccessful boycott of the APA when they held their 2010 convention at the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, because the hotel's owner had donated money in support of the California Marriage Protection Act.” The RS does not support that.
4. Jokestress wrote that “He is also a frequent critic of other sexual minorities.” That is entirely untrue and entirely unsourced.
5. Jokestress wrote that “He has disputed the claims of shemales who say they do not seek sex reassignment surgery”, which is also unsupported. (I said I was “skeptical” of claims, which I am, but fully acknowledge that pre-op status is a perfectly acceptable state for people who desire it.)
6. “Controversial” is a word to avoid, and the RS does not support that my review of Bailey’s book was related to its depiction of gay men.
7. Jokestress wrote that “Cantor refutes critics of his activism…” Repeatedly placing “research” with “activism,” does not reflect the RS’s.
8. Factually correct information Jokestress added include the year of my birth (the date is Jan. 2, btw) and that my Masters came from BU. It is also true that I am an American-Canadian dual citizen rather than Canadian, although the MOS for BLP’s suggests that the lede sentence should refer to one’s nationality at the time the subject become notable.
9. A correction unrelated to Jokestress: Although an RS says I was a computer science major at RPI, I was actually an “interdisciplinary science” major with a concentration in computer science. I am not aware of an RS that says that, however.
10. Wrt NPOV issues, there is no problem at all with including my views, but NPOV and UNDUE coverage requires coverage to be balanced in proportion to the existing RS’s. My scientific works are very widely discussed in multiple highly reliable sources, whereas the page focuses on Jokestress’ interest: social activism and for which there is very little written about me by any RS. To write things such as “a frequent critic of other sexual minorities” and ignore the many easily available comments I have made in support of the rights of a wide range of sexual minorities, even people with pedophilia is not good faith WP editing.
11. Of course, User:Jokestress has long kept off-wiki attack sites about me (and many of my colleagues), including written demands that my employer fire me. I have long kept on my userpage my pledge not edit the Andrea James page (Jokestress’ self-acknowledged off-wiki name). Other editors may wish to opin whether Jokestress/Andrea James should do the same and whether her edits here constitute BLP and COI violations.
12. Relevant EL's to consider adding would be for the University of Toronto and/or my own faculty website http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if we accept newsletters published on the APA's own website as RS's, then Jokestress' points #1 and #2 are verifiable. James Cantor has written for the APA's "division 44" newsletter[18]. This division/newsletter discussed boycotting and other options due to a hotel's support of Prop 8[19]. Boycotts are clearly not a matter of science, but activism. BitterGrey (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Per his own website, he's written for Division 44 at least twice[20]. I'd have to concede that the article the Jokestress pointed out, "Empowering Our Clients and Ourselves: Integrating Psychology with Political Activism."[21] is a clearer example of Division 44's Activism. (Please keep in mind that I'm not opposed to activism. If one is openly both an activist and a scientist, the article about them should reflect this.)BitterGrey (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point #11, I'd urge us all to address the edits, not the editor. Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks or assumptions of ill will. BitterGrey (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I agree that given their tempestuous history, it really is not best that Jokestress edit this article. I'm sure that's one of the reasons Cantor doesn't edit Jokestress's article. But I suppose this may at one point be taken to the wider community to decide. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

To try to stay positive, I'm pleased with how the adjustment about homosexuality was made. If we could expand that to include the connection with an advocacy & research group, using the RS's from the APA, that might help diffuse things. BitterGrey (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Crusio's edits have addressed the major points I noted above. Some errors have crept in during of change from "infobox scientist" to "infobox person," however. I live and work in Toronto, but I was born in New York. Because the basis of my notability (for WP purposes) is my research/academic work, it is not clear to me why the "person" infobox is superior to the "scientist" infobox, but I think that that is probably best left for others to decide.— James Cantor (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

Shemales

I can't understand what this means, and can't read the source:

He has expressed skepticism about the claims of shemales who say they do not seek sex reassignment surgery ...

Could someone post here what the source says that supports the sentence? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cantor is one of the few people who use "shemale" as a scientific term, as if it were not a term from anti-trans feminism, later appropriated by pornography. He and his coworkers have even used it in publications. Here's the quote:

Shemales are men who live their lives as women and undergo various procedures such as breast, cheek and lip implants and electrolysis to look female, but keep their male genitals, explained Amanda Taylor, organizer of the pageant. [...] Dr. James Cantor, a researcher at Toronto's gender identity clinic, said he is skeptical of people who say they want to remain in a shemale state. "They often change their stories as they come to terms with everything," he said. Doctors use the term transgendered to refer to both transsexuals who feel they were born with the wrong gender and want total sex changes, and shemales. Cantor says it is impossible to know how many transgendered people there are in Canada because many hide their true identities. Because shemales are relatively rare, he said, they can make big money in the sex trade and that's probably why they don't get sex changes. Taylor said that's ridiculous and she wants people to open their minds to the reality that not everyone can be slotted neatly into male or female pigeonholes.

Also, why did you take out the published sources about Cantor's gay activism? Jokestress (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote; I'll use it to fix the sentence. I removed the sentence about his partner because it was unsourced, per BLP. Not sure which sentence about gay activism you mean. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hebephilia

Again, I can't read the source. Could someone post here the part that supports this edit?

Psychologist Karen Franklin has characterized Cantor's efforts in promoting the diagnostic category hebephilia as "attempts by an activist minority in the mental health field to legitimize it as a bona fide psychiatric disorder."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Source confirmed. pdf is copy protected, and the the sentence reflects the whole article, not just a small copyable section. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But there may be other parts that we should include too. It's not ideal to have criticism in a BLP rely on material that people can't see. Can you post here the sentence we quote part of, and the one before it if it's relevant? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, as I said, the whole article is a critique to the heberphilia idea and the push by the Clark Institute especially Cantor, to promote this term. So, no, just taking that sentence and the piece before it does not provide you with any more context. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As for other parts, yes, there are more gems in the article. There is a good piece about evolutionary biology (which argues that sexual attraction to reproductive individuals (aka many in the hebephilia group) is natural, while forensic psychiatry, in order to have more tools to lock up people beyond their prison term promote this term and the pathologizing of the sexual attraction to sexual reproductive minors. Together with other articles like the responses to the Blanchard et al article promoting this term for the DSM V (all behind subscriptions), it could easily cover its own header without even becoming undue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

I wonder whether there's too heavy a reliance on primary sources, which shouldn't be used in BLPs except to augment secondary coverage of them. The secondary sources I can see are:

• 1997 McGill article; is this a student newspaper? [22]
• 2002 Toronto Star article, but I can't see what it says about him. [23]
• 2007 BBC article about his research [24]
• 2007 BBC radio interview about his research [25]
• 2007 Telepolis article about his research [26]
• 2009 Toronto Star article about his research [27]
• 2010 CNN article mentioning him in passing. [28]

And possibly:

• 2008 Archives of Sexual Behavior article by Alice Dreger, but not clear whether it's a primary or secondary source (boils down to whether Dreger is involved in this issue, or is offering an uninvolved overview).

Our article should be based entirely on secondary sources, plus whatever Cantor says about himself. Primary sources should only be used to augment the secondary sources, but shouldn't be used to draw conclusions, per BLP and NOR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You removed a secondary source, the profile by Dingfelder that appeared in the American Psychological Association publication APA Monitor. His paper titled "Being gay and being a graduate student," which you also removed, seems to be enough for an uncontroversial fact (the BLP standard). He talks about his personal experiences of being gay whenever he is engaged in activism and advocacy. Jokestress (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source didn't mention a name. The primary source did, but is from nearly 20 years ago. It smacks of digging around, and someone explained above—someone involved in an earlier on-wiki dispute with him—why he wanted to make sure that information was in the article. The article shouldn't be edited like that. We simply repeat what reliable secondary sources say about him, and not add or remove material because it fits a certain view. The subject shouldn't have to be posting here on the talk page asking us to observe the content policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing one person deleting RS's[29] she clearly hasn't read[30] and making personal comments to avoid discussing her actions. BitterGrey (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hebephilia

There's more than one psychiatrist that thinks hebephilia doesn't belong in the DSM, and also more than one that do think it should be. Picking one critic and also making it sound like Cantor is mainly responsible for the proposal are a poor way to present this. It should be phrased in more general terms: he is one of the proponents, and there's criticism from several sources. Additional sources can be found on User_talk:KimvdLinde#Out_of_curiosity. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article didn't reflect the source, which didn't mention him specifically in terms of an "activist minority," so I've removed it until we can find a way to write it up differently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert or rebuild (being gay)

Last night, this article was hit by someone who deleted multiple references as unsourced[31] among many other changes, and when asked to discuss her actions, stated that she "can't see any mention of a name" in "Random Sample: James M. Cantor, PhD"[32]. We have the option to rebuild part by part, or revert the article back to how it was before. BitterGrey (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Revert - It is Wikipedia policy not to feed trolls, (even if they are admins[33]). I also think the article should be moved back to the name used on James _M._ Cantor's website[34] and on most of the RS's. That one person is being so problematic, even about the subject's name, suggests that there might be some motive behind her actions. BitterGrey (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I am also unable to find a name for the partner mentioned in the "Random Sample" article. --Crusio (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The partners name? A reasonable alternative interpretation. Do you agree that those references and most of Christopher Connor's section should have remained, and that there should have been discussions specific to the partner's name (instead of leaving us to speculate like this)? BitterGrey (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wondered from the beginning where the partner's name came from. As for whether we really need a section informing us that Cantor is gay and lives with a steady partner, I have not much of an opinion about that. Personally, I think that such stuff is rather trivial in an academic's bio (of course, in bios of really important people, such as movie or sports stars, this stuff may be the bulk of the whole bio, but let's stay serious here). Whatever is decided about that, I don't think that it is necessary to give a name of a partner, especially if there is no RS for that. In BLPs we have to be careful with people's privacy. --Crusio (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of conversation that should have happened last night: Different positions expressing themselves clearly, drawing toward a common ground. Mass deletion and vague dismissal don't help. As for me, since a good bit of James M. Cantor's research reflects on homosexuality (or at least ends up in RSs about homosexuality) I think it is relevant. Now, about how best to get back on track toward that common ground. Revert or rebuild? BitterGrey (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Having slept over it, I don't think Cantor's sexual orientation is important. If he were heterosexual and defending the viewpoint that it is not being heterosexuality in itself that predisposes some male pedophiles to be interested in little girls, we would not be having this discussion. --Crusio (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think it is an argument, and agree that if he were heterosexual, there wouldn't be much debate. Two of the articles of the first three names to come to mind (Alfred_Kinsey,Jung, and Freud) have sections on personal life, including wife's name, etc. The third, Freud, has a separate article for his family. Would others like to share their thoughts? BitterGrey (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Cantor, but he's not in the same league as the persons you mention. As a result, whereas books have been written about the lives of Freud and Jung et al., in the case of Cantor all we have is some interview where he tells us that he is gay and (perhaps) the name of his partner. If you look at the bios of scientists at a comparable level of notability, you'll see that very few mention anything about their personal lives, simply because we have no sources to say anything meaningful about it. Simply saying "he's gay and lives with his partner" is not really very useful info, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Individuals have started repairing, so I'll withdraw the motion to revert. BitterGrey (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay to mention (briefly!) the student paper about his personal life experiences in that regard (being gay and being a graduate student). While that paper is not a scientific accomplishment, it does say something about himself, and there are secondary sources that mention the paper. We include more irrelevant and unsourced stuff like his CS degree being interdisciplinary, etc. He didn't publish anything in computer science, so (playing devil's advocate) that's irrelevant to his career too even though it's mentioned in the same source. [35]Tijfo098 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

pedohebophia

Based on the description at dsm5.org[36], it seems like the sentence that currently reads "Cantor is one of the co-authors of a 2008 paper by Ray Blanchard, which shaped the DSM-5 proposal of replacing the pedophilia diagnosis with pedohebophilic disorder, effectively making hebephilia a mental disorder" would be better worded as follows: "Cantor is one of the co-authors of a 2008 paper by Ray Blanchard, which shaped the DSM-5 proposal of replacing pedophilia with pedohebophilic disorder, synchronizing it with ICD-10 by increasing the age range to include older children." Thoughts? BitterGrey (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From their page "There are four reasons for replacing Pedophilia with Pedohebephilic Disorder." Picking one is POV, especially since the ICD-10 stuff is pretty far down in their rationale. The full discussion belongs at pedohebephilic disorder, and possibly also at pedophilia or hebephilia, but certainly not in Cantor's bio. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you think that mentioning the nature of the criticism is unbalancing that statement, I'm fine to remove that too, and say something more concise, like "sparked (some) criticism/debate/whatever", but that seemed too vague when the criticism was easy to summarize. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to clarify the what without getting into the why. Would "... pedohebophilic disorder, effectively harmonizing ..." be more acceptable? If not, please let me know what effects you think are being under- or over-represented. Maybe we should agree on how to word the change before discussing how to word the criticism of the change. BitterGrey (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are proposing to add a why, and an extremely undue one in this context because the paper, of which I have the full text, doesn't ever mention the ICD. Cantor is not in the DSM-5 committee(s), so whatever additional rationales they may have, those can hardly be attributed to him. I'm sure you have best intentions, but the way I would react to reading what you propose we write is: "Bah, he's acting like bureaucrat synchronizing two classifications". Tijfo098 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to be constructive here. Please let me know what effects you think are being under- or over-represented. BitterGrey (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the main why from the paper in their own words. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) The word "disorder" is being added to all the paraphilias. Thus DSM 5 _pedophilic_ disorder would be comparable to DSM IV pedophilia. As detailed at dsm5.org[37], DSM 5 pedohebephilia (not the disorder) will be a new non-diagnosis for those who might have an interest (Criterion A), but don't meet the other criteria. Pedophilia was a disorder in DSM IV, and pedohebephilic disorder will be a disorder in DSM 5. Pedophilia was a paraphilia in DSM IV, and pedohebephilic disorder will be a paraphilia (or paraphilic disorder, now that there are non-disorder paraphilias) in DSM 5. Pedohebephilic disorder is, according to dsm5.org, no more a "mental disorder" than pedophilia was before. If we can't reach a consensus on what changed, we really should avoid adding assertions about why whatever changed has changed. BitterGrey (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're objecting to, but the word disorder in "Pedohebephilic disorder" is meant to indicate that it is (going to be) a diagnosable mental disorder. The paraphilia article needs some updating with the DSM-5 proposal indeed, i.e. the distinction between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder, but editors there already object that we have "too much DSM material", even though the objectors don't seem to add anything to the article for a different perspective. So, I'm weary of adding that info there that right now. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hell, I'll bite the bullet and add the info there. Prepare for the fireworks. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point is that dsm5.org and the changes that sentence attributes to DSM 5 don't match. BitterGrey (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate what doesn't match. As promised, I've written a summary of the proposed distinction between paraphlia and paraphilic disorder: Paraphilia#DSM-5 draft. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"...effectively making hebephilia a mental disorder..." In DSM5 terminology, hebephilia wouldn't be a disorder; hebephilic disorder would be. (That is, if hebephilia and hebephilic disorder were to be listed in DSM5.) In DSM IV, hebephilia (or paraphilia NOS:Hebephilia) is a disorder. So in a way, DSM5 is effectively making hebephilia NOT a mental disorder. I think we agree on the substance of the changes to DSM. We just need to work out a way to express them here that isn't confusing. (Or not express them here.)BitterGrey (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "effectively" was meant to gloss over the crtierion A/B discussion, and the change in terminology, both of which I am ware of, since I wrote Paraphilia#DSM-5 draft. I have made a change here [38], which hopefully alleviates this concern over preciseness, while still remaining concise. The new source cited does say "[...] that hebephilia needed to be added to the definition [...]", and it's a neutral report from [39]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The summary you wrote about DSM 5 is pretty good. Clearly, we agree on what changed, but differ on how to state it without getting encumbered by the changes in terminology. If you had to express the changes without using a word affected by the change - that is ~isms, ~ilias, etc. - how would you? BitterGrey (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning sexual orientation

The subject of this biography is an academic expert in sexology, who "in 1991, [...] gave a presentation at APA's Annual Convention in San Francisco about the challenges of being a gay graduate student". [40] This is mentioned in a reputable source -- the American Psychological Association's website. Should this be mentioned in the Wikipedia article about him? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked how Christopher Connor put it. It was simple and no one seemed to have a problem with it. Text and both references (one published by the APA, one written by the subject and presented to the APA) were deleted without meaningful discussion.

-- Personal life --

Cantor is gay and met his partner, also a psychologist, after giving a speech about being a gay graduate student at the 1991 annual convention of the American Psychological Association.

BitterGrey (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read the whole article, but is it necessary to point out that he is gay? Do we point out that people are straight and they met their husband or wife on such and such occasion? Just something to think about. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To check this, I looked up the first three names to come to mind (Alfred_Kinsey,Jung, and Freud). Two have sections on personal life, including wife's name, etc. The third, Freud, has a separate article for his family. Crusio correctly pointed out that these three are much more notable than James Cantor. BitterGrey (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest something simpler. Add in his education section, or possibly even in the research section:

Cantor gave a speech about his personal experience of being a gay graduate student at the 1991 annual convention of the American Psychological Association.

Signed, Tijfo098 (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with wording by Tijfo098. We don't make a point of people being straight. We could potentially add information about his partner if found in a reliable source, but how they meet isn't appropriate. I note that the spouses of Alfred Kinsey, Jung, and Freud all lack inline sources. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but we also rarely mention that someone is a 'northpaw.' In this language/culture, it is the atypical that is discussed. I would have preferred something that didn't make it look as if he were trying to get back into the closet. However, we have a majority decision that I'm not adverse to. Should we close the RFC? BitterGrey (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about shemale info

This line: He is skeptical of shemales—men who undergo procedures to look female and who live as women, but who do not seek sex reassignment surgery—who say they want to remain in a shemale state -- is there a particular reason this is in the article? Has this stance generated significant controversy? Is it unique in any significant way? Without some better context I'm finding it difficult to understand why it's in the article at all (might as well, then, list all of his views about everything). Note that I don't necessarily oppose keeping a mention of it, if it's worth mentioning. — e. ripley\^talk 01:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also been concerned about this. It relies on one paper by Alice Dreger, who's involved in the issue. What we need ideally are uninvolved secondary sources explaining whether it's a real controversy, or notable in some other way. It's also not clear what the significance of "he has also praised The Man Who Would Be Queen" is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's equally confounding for the same reason. — e. ripley\^talk 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the most controversial book about a controversial topic. See for instance the paragraph about it in John Bancroft's book: [41]. (Bancroft's book has been well reviewed in NEJM and a few other places, so I think it is a fairly accurate description of the Bailey controversy; see autogynephilia for the wiki version). However, Cantor's involvement in that controversy appears marginal at best, so it's not incredibly important to his biography. We'd have to consider whether he just made a statement one time somewhere or written more extensively or repeatedly about it. I have other priorities though. (By the way, this is nowhere near as silly as having Richard Green's paper about pedophilia as the only "achievement" in the intro to his article. [42]) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It should either be removed, or the significance of it needs to be explained, using a secondary source. As it stands it looks a bit odd. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this explains the significance. Cantor's review is discussed at some length in the secondary reference [43]. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The original URL for the Toronto Star article with the shemale info was only available with subscription/$ but a very quick Google search of the copy-paste text Jokestress had given previously has that Amy Carmichael's article in full text with Cantor's opinion that shemales "often change their mind as they come to terms with their situation." It's really too bad that this quote doesn't have any context whatsoever. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I avoid posting here, but for what it's worth: I have a copy of Carmichael's article in the Toronto Star and would be happy to backchannel it; however, so far as I can tell, the copy at Drudge Report appears to be accurate to the original.

The idea I was expressing to the Star was that I am skeptical of the reasons people give for wanting to transition. (There are a great many conflicting pressures that trans folks face in making that decision, and simple reasons are rarely, if ever, the whole story.) I'm not quite sure how clearly the reporter conveyed that, but that was my intent.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth place.

An editor expanded my birthplace from just "New York" (which is correct) to "New York, New York", which is not correct. In case it's relevant, the name of the town in New York was Manhasset (although I wasn't raised there).— James Cantor (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, does anyone know the ethnicity of mr. Cantor? We could add the relevant tag to his article. 188.83.224.210 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment about relevance, but both of my parents were born in the U.S., and each of my four grandparents were immigrants to the U.S.--from Mexico, Austria (now Poland), and the U.K.— James Cantor (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Add to WikiProject Sexuality?

{{Request edit}} I believe it would be appropriate to add this BLP to WikiProject Sexuality. Although it's probably okay for me to do so myself, I'd rather someone else did, just in case. Thanks.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's been done. SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both!— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

User:Picture of a Sunny Day has made a series of changes to the mainpage. They include several SYNTH and OR claims which are incorrect, ascribing to me views I do not hold and never expressed. I would revert them myself on BLP grounds, but I have had several negative interactions with that editor, so would prefer someone else review the edits, if possible.— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's likely pointless for me to respond to you, James, since you probably will refuse to engage with me. But all the the same, I reject the idea that my edits include any original research. I assume you are mainly objecting to my re-wording of the paraphrase of your "Bill of Transsexual Rights" document. This is not original research. This is a NPOV interpretation, direct quotes included, of an reputable source document (one you wrote coincidentally). Just because the paraphrase is not flattering to you does not mean it is inaccurate or that it's not a NPOV summation of your views. The policy on BLP does not necessitate removing embarrassing information on living person just because those persons CLAIM that's not what they really MEANT to say. Rebecca (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, if it's actually true that you don't believe the things that you said in the source document, James, maybe rather than complaining about the fact that I'm quoting those things, you could write something that actually DOES express what you believe, and then use that as a source for your Wikipedia article. After all, I'm not the one who wrote a cissexist source document that talks about how trans people should "assimilate" and how trans people should be informed by gatekeepers of the "rates of regret" associated with transition. You did. I'm just quoting what YOU wrote IN YOUR WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. And as a final aside. . .please don't delude yourself into thinking, James, that just because you pretend to be an ally of trans women to advance your career that you actually ARE an ally to us and our struggle for freedom. Everything you has ever done in relation to us has been horrible and has been harmful to us. Please stop objectifying us, lying about us, and manipulating us for your own twisted motives. Please just leave us alone. Rebecca (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rebecca/Picture of the Sunny Day, given the sentiments you just voiced above, it seems abundantly clear to me that you have a huge COI here and should absolutely refrain from editing this article. I am going to revert your changes to this BLP. If you think something in this article should be changed/reworded/modified/added/deleted, please post on this talk page. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Randykitty, I am willing to refrain from editing this article. I would like, however, some clarification as to what exactly you think my COI here is. I believe that all editors on Wikipedia have their own unique perspectives and biases. The article on Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest states, however, that "beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest." It's obviously clear I have strong opinions about this subject. I'm not trying to hide that. But how do my strong opinions constitute a conflict of interest? The edits I made conformed to all of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'm not getting paid to make this edits. Sure, I vigorously disagree with James Cantor on many things, but he is not a personal enemy of mine; in fact, I have never even met him before in my entire life. Is there some requirement that only people who like James Cantor and agree with his views are qualified to edit his Wikipedia article? Rebecca (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca, I think you will find that coming to an article about a living person, and making it clear on its talk page that you strongly dislike that person, makes harmonious editing impossible. It would be best not to edit the article's talk page either, if you cannot avoid this kind of confrontational behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with FKC, well said. --Randykitty (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Per the consensus here, I've decided it would be best for me to not edit James Cantor's Wikipedia article or his talk page anymore. This will be the final edit that I make to either. Rebecca (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi All. Taking a look at this string, I am not sure if the Request Edit has been fulfilled or if the issue remains. If there is still an issue, can you please specify the exact text that needs oversight? Thanks. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CorporateM. User:Randykitty reverted the problematic edits here. Is there a way to mark the edit request as completed, or does it just get deleted entirely? Thanks, again.— James Cantor (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Biased Edits

This change [44] appears to be related to ongoing edit requests on Talk:Pedophilia by User:Research bias, though in this case the user appears to be attempting to conceal his or her identity by editing as an anonymous IP. This has gone on quite enough and as I have now examined the source material and edits in detail, I need to point out this edit and those on pedophilia reflect a few problems:

1. The overall goal seems to be to minimize and undermine the findings of Cantor's papers from 2007 and 2008, and the user has made both reference to Cantor's homosexuality and comments disparaging to homosexuals in general. This suggests a personal vendetta rather than genuine scientific skepticism.
2. The edits confound the three papers by lumping unrelated matters about them together. For example claiming the sample was small subset composed of prisoners when in fact this was only true for the 2008 paper on white matter. The other two papers had thousands of subjects, a significant portion of which were referred to the facility by professionals or other means. Furthermore, the white matter paper has more than enough subjects (100+) considering it is an MRI study. MRIs are expensive, time consuming, and require many expert staff to administer.
3. The edits seek to poison the well to lay readers by presenting numbers in findings out-of-context, without any mention of statistical significance, regression analysis, confidence intervals etc. This out-of-context information creates an deceptive impression of the findings.

As a result, I have removed this information.Legitimus (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV again

NPOV means unqualified statements such as He has been called the "foremost living expert on and being "at the forefront of dont seem to meet our NPOV policy at all♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I know, in all articles (not just bios), it's exceptionally rare to say something like "John Doe remarked that...", unless the identity of John Doe is crucial to the statement. This does not seem to be the case here and I fail to see why "he has been called (ref: John Doe)" is more POV than "John Doe has called him". --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I am open to suggestions (I didnt make the original edit) in order to solve the POV issue♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to suggest something, if you could explain to me what exactly the POV issue is. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that the topic is under the discretionary sanctions for Sexology, and that SqueakBox has been involved in prior conflicts with James Cantor the editor (example), I suggest SqueakBox apply great restraint in counter-consensus editing of James Cantor the BLP.— James Cantor (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that, and the fact that I absolutely fail to see the POV issue here and the absence of any further explanation by SqueakBox, I have reverted to the last stable version. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont think I am going to be intimidated by the article subject when he is not invoking BLP but thanks for the heads up about the arbcom, I didnt know that. Needless to say my editing this article has nothing to do with my conflict with James as a wikipedia editor, I dont think suggesting otherwise is assuming good faith. Just because James chose to disagree with my edits there (and at its afd) does not of course preclude me from editing this article, even under arbcom discretionary sanctions. As I said we need to make this article NPOV and given neither James nor Randy have attempted to do so I am adding an NPOV tag until this can be sorted. I am not attached to the edit the anon made but the current version is not NPOV, its too positive towards the subject for that, based on my experience of reading tens of thousands of wikipedia articles, and we get NPOV right most of the time♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:James Cantor, you are the expert, is the Virtuous Pedophile article covered as sexology or not? If it is your point is well made, if it isnt then I dont see any connection between our dispute on that article and the arbcom ruling on this article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a question for ArbCom, not me. However, seeking the very limit and simultaneously tagging this page does not suggest (at least to me) good faith editing. I can only repeat my recommendation to apply great restraint.— James Cantor (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you're asking me to show the article is NPOV. As you know, a negative is virtually impossible to prove. Hence I ask you once again to explain to me why naming these authors in the main text, instead of in the references, is more NPOV than the other way around. From my experience with biographies, author names are almost invariably used in this way (i.e. in the main text) by people trying to show how important they are ("see who says I'm wonderful" or, of course, to get their name in the text of yet another article, instead of tucked away in the references) and I invariably (not just here) remove these author names, as they are already in the reference. So please explain what is NPOV about this article instead of just saying "the current version is not NPOV". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

I recent TVO interview with me has been made available free on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2rOhcaqsBQ. I thought some might consider it an appropriate EL.— James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!— James Cantor (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is NPOV tag stale?

Hi, folks. Although the NPOV tag has been on the page for a couple of months now, there does not seem to be any discussion. Let me suggest the tag be considered for removal?— James Cantor (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Seems resonable, I'll remove it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks!— James Cantor (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this article

This version (Jan 29 2015) of the article has much text based on primary sources, it is turning into a CV with lists of cited articles without establishing why these are notable, is becoming a platform for expressing Cantor's views (many of which are controversial) and perhaps half is original research. Suggest these problems be fixed soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Leeway is given for WP:Primary sources and poorer sources when the text is a WP:About self case. WP:About self does note exceptions, though. Flyer22 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I agree with this revert you made regarding an edit by Starburst9 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My general problem is that the article -- seen fresh -- is that it looks like a resume or CV or advertisement. A new reader, coming across it, will lower their estimation of Wikipedia's quality when they read it. And listing articles, listing Cantor's views by citing Cantor's publications (primary source) really violates the spirit of neutrality and impartiality. Secondary sources are really needed here, the text based on primary sources should be really cut down, this article in its current form is undermining Wikipedia's credibility.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Further, the effect of the sourcing issues and CV-ish language is that it makes Cantor, a heavyweight, appear like a lightweight, so I don't think it is fair to the subject or to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sex addiction views

I preferred the version of this section prior to these edits. The comment about Anthony Weiner is WP:NEWSy and says nothing about sex addiction in general. Sex addiction meaning different things is already covered with a better source in the Research section ("Cantor's research suggests that "sex addiction" represents a variety of distinct problems ..."). KateWishing (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Shemale

Our own article makes clear that shemale is a derogatory term for trans women who donmt seek re-assignment surgery and so I have replaced with the neutral term trans woman. I consider this use of the derogatory term disgraceful in this article and further evidence of how it hasnt been neutral according to our NPOV policy♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how one evidences the other, and I didn't use the term myself (the newspaper reporter did). Nonetheless, if you do want to remove it, there are two other appearances you'll want to get.— James Cantor (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. —ajf (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Promotional language?

Hello User:KateWishing. Can you suggest what might be better language? And should American still be changed to Canadian? Starburst9 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence should be a neutral description, as it currently is. Canadian seems to be more appropriate under MOS:BLPLEAD, so I'll change that back. KateWishing (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean that the rest should go later in the article? Your comment sounded like the language was the problem, not the location. Would "In source X he said this, and in source Y he said that" be better? Starburst9 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again User:KateWishing. I just read the MOS:BLPLEAD link you gave, and I'm not understanding what's wrong. It says the opener should include why the person is notable, and being quoted in multiple international newspapers would seem to be exactly that, no? Starburst9 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I cited MOS:BLPLEAD to justify your removal of "American" from the lead, which seems correct. The main problem with your edit was the opening sentence, James M. Cantor (born January 2, 1966) is "an internationally respected clinical psychologist". Internationally respected is a WP:PEACOCK term that says little about the subject. Instead, we should explain what he has done to become internationally respected. The other problem is that you added WP:BAREURL references. Please use the same templated citation style as all the other references. I prefer to type these manually, but this page explains a method that might be easier. KateWishing (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok. It was a direct quote from a source, so I assumed it was legit. I'll reword it. Starburst9 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason as in the policy that user:KateWishing said. The lead should show why the person is notable. Being interviewed by, not just CNN, but media all over the world, in several languages, certainly seems to fit that. Starburst9 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Also, I think the new links and language help to address what user:Tomwsulcer said about the page making Cantor sound less of a heavyweight than it should. Starburst9 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to list every news outlet that has mentioned him. He is mainly notable for his research on sexuality, rather than being interviewed in the media. KateWishing (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Starburst9, I reverted you per what I stated in that edit summary. Regarding mentioning all those news sites, it's not needed; simply leaving it as "and his work and views have received international media coverage" suffices. I also don't fully like the "demonstrated that pedophilia is largely or entirely a biological phenomenon of the brain, rather than a learned characteristic" wording; this is because it makes it sounds like the cause of pedophilia has been concluded. As I'm sure you know, pedophilia is compared to sexual orientation. These days, the vast majority of researchers who specialize in sexual orientation believe that sexual orientation is a combination of biological and social factors (nature and nurture). So why should we believe that pedophilia is solely a biological matter as opposed to a combination of biological and social factors? I understand that this is where "largely" comes in, but I would prefer that the word demonstrated be replaced with indicated in this case. I also don't see where that content is specifically addressed in the body of the article. Yes, despite what this and this section state. The WP:Lead should summarize the article, not address points not noted lower in the article. Something else is that I think that the article should be consistent with citation style; instead of using the long form, use the shorter form that the article already uses.

On a side note: I removed your section heading because a separate section was not needed. And, per WP:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages, you typically shouldn't address an editor by name in the heading unless at a forum like WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And using the same citation style is easy; just copy and paste a citation style that is in the article and fill in the fields with the appropriate content. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance about headers. I think I've now gotten the hang of citing websites, exactly by copying others. It might be easy, but it sure is finicky too! About giving examples of media coverage, I don't think it's fair to call it a list of all of them. Google gave me thousands of hits, and I limited the examples to one per country and still skipped many countries (and languages) altogether. I thought that was a way to justify "international" without going overboard. Perhaps you could enlighten me on a related note, however. On other pages I saw complaints about pages that were too American focuessed. Without cites to media in other countries and languages, isn't that doing the same thing here? Finally, I get that the lead should summarize whats on the rest of the page. I am/was planning on adding to the rest of the page, and I was just starting at the top and working down. Should I bother continuing with that, or am I beating a dead horse here? Add lower content first and then adjust the lead? Starburst9 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for your patience with me! Starburst9 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think that adding all those news sites to the lead is unneeded. As a compromise, I could agree to listing two in the lead. As for your Template:Globalize query, read that template; this matter is not the same thing. As for expanding the article, how are you planning to expand it? What more do you think it needs? I definitely see no need for overkill. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on James Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.atsa.com/pubJrnl.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sexscience.org/publications/index.php?category_id=439&subcategory_id=340

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Jezebel

I do not accept that this edit by Banglange, restoring content sourced to a blog, is appropriate. WP:BLP is clear that high-quality sources need to be used in articles about living people. Jezebel, according to its article here, is a "blog geared towards women, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing." Statements about a person's status as an authority on paraphilias should not be cited to a blog chiefly concerned with celebrity and fashion. The Jezebel article that was used as a source is essentially an opinion-piece, mainly concerned with discussing popular movies and TV, and it seems bizarre to use it as a source for a claim about a scientist's qualifications. WP:NEWSBLOG states that, "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...") The "expert on paraphilias" claim is not attributed, however, and if Cantor is indeed a prominent expert on paraphilias, it should be possible to find a respectable academic source supporting that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. A WP:BLP should not use blogs as sources. I previously removed[45] the same claim and citation myself for the same reasons, only to have it restored[46] without explanation. It should not be there. Msnicki (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the blog; exclusive interviews and news blogs are commonly accepted. Although I prefer not to name drop in the lead unless necessary, this edit by FreeKnowledgeCreator should suffice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

One has to remember that, per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and the "foremost living expert on paraphilias" claim should not be in the lead unless it is also in the body of the article, which at present it is not. The edit Flyer22 Reborn links to above was intended only as a second-best solution; I believe the claim ought to be removed entirely, if a better source for it cannot be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it also matters that this isn't merely a claim that the subject specializes in paraphilias or even just that he's an expert. It is a claim that he is the "foremost living expert". As Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A foremost living expert claim should be sourced to something more than a blog. That would be true even if this wasn't a BLP where you're not supposed to be using blogs anyway. A simple WP:RS news source, as was provided for the "world's leading pedophile expert" claim, would be fine. But we need more than a blog. Msnicki (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Although it would not be appropriate for me to engage in this discussion, I have asked the RS noticeboard for input:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Jezebel.com_.28online_new_magazine.29_an_RS.3F

— James Cantor (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you can, James. There's a prohibition only on editing your own BLP. But there's no prohibition at all on arguing your own views on the talk page. You should tell us your preference. What you think does matter and should be considered. Msnicki (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement, and certainly acknowledge the relevant rules. My experience, however, is that because I study controversial topics, there are editors (and members of the public) with very strong views about what my colleagues and I report. The very long and contentious WP history on sexology pages suggests that no matter what I say, I need to be prepared for editors who will use it to attempt to lob whatever allegations against me. So, I reflexively take the most conservative path and stay essentially out of it. Relatedly, because of your own (recent) history editing this page—and the several warnings you received from uninvolved editors for doing so—I would recommend you do the same and leave the content to neutrals.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You can ask that, but I don't have to agree. Sorry. Just because we !voted differently at an AfD does not mean I cannot be neutral. I don't form grudges and I certainly don't hold them. FKC, who started this thread, can tell you that he and I have disagreed vigorously, yet here I am supporting him. Same thing with BMK, who reverted me in the diff I cited. I try really hard to get along with people, be respectful, set aside personal feelings, follow the guidelines and seek consensus. Sometimes consensus goes my way, sometimes it doesn't. But either way, I try to accept that graciously. Aside from being disappointed and frustrated by your questioning of my good faith, I have not shown any animosity toward you. I really don't feel any. I love debates but hate fighting. I think we could get along, too, but things have gotten off on the wrong foot and I wish we could fix that. Msnicki (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that sentiment expressed in the above. Whether your actual editing lives up to that attitude (e.g., [47]), readers can decide for themselves. As noted already, the inappropriateness of your editing has been pointed out to you by others,[48][49] including the closing admin’s observation at ANI that “further discussion is unlikely to be productive.”[50] Whether your responses to input indicate good faith editing, readers can also decide for themselves:[51][52][53]. I believe any further discussion belongs on a user talkpage rather than here.

(I didn't ask: I suggested, which I still do.)

— James Cantor (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

James, you had only !voted WP:PERNOM at the time. Closing admins aren't even supposed to count those! Are you paranoid? Why would anyone would want "revenge" for that? I've told you from the beginning I meant to be helpful and you've questioned that continuously. I hope you'll reconsider. Msnicki (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:RSN (archived here) supported Nblund's suggestion that we use the Washington Post as a source for their description of the subject[54] as "a former editor of the journal Sexual Abuse and an expert on paraphilias". I've patched things up with Dr. Cantor offline, but still, perhaps someone else (FreeKnowledgeCreator?) might care to do the edit? Msnicki (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not forgotten this issue, and was intending to make the edit eventually. Thank you for the reminder. It will probably happen in the near future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this, those were two reliable sources stating that Cantor is the leading expert on pedophilia. And a number of other reliable sources state the same thing, or call him one of the leading experts on pedophilia. So if we are not to include in the lead that he is commonly considered such, we should at least consider noting it somewhere lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I support adding back the second claim, sourced to CBC, that Cantor is also an expert on pedophiles. This is clearly different than being an expert in paraphilias. Msnicki (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Yes, that first source's quote is about being the "foremost living expert on paraphilias." Clearly not the same as being the foremost living expert on pedophilia. I just looked at the second source (cbc.ca). A number of experts would debate the following: "Although the majority of pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children, many are fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age. This is why many pedophiles are able to get married, have healthy sex lives, bear children, and even deny the reality of their attraction to children far into their adult lives." And by "debate," I mean that a number of experts on pedophilia usually don't think it's many that are "fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age." At least as far as genuine sexual attraction goes. We address the exclusive vs. non-exclusive aspect in the Pedophilia article (here and here), which also notes the definitional issue that comes along with it and the topic of child sexual abuse. I don't know of any reliable documentation of a true pedophile being able to have a satisfactory sex life with an adult; so I like that the article also relayed the following: "Even when pedophiles do find adult partners to have a relationship with, they often are more strongly attracted to children than adults, and for obvious reasons." So despite my concern about the source making it seem that pedophiles being sexually attracted to adults is common, the source does seem solid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to other users altering the lead as they see fit, so long as it is based on good sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://opd.state.wi.us/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018182049/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/world/vatican.homosexuality.pedophilia_1_pedophilia-gay-rights-cardinal-tarcisio-bertone?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/world/vatican.homosexuality.pedophilia_1_pedophilia-gay-rights-cardinal-tarcisio-bertone?_s=PM:WORLD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)