Talk:Michael C. Seto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability at this time[edit]

This biography does not appear to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Jokestress (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. From Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria." So, from WP:BIO, scientists and academics are notable if their work has been the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which Seto's book has. I have added cites to those reviews on the mainpage and removed the tag.— James Cantor (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is debatable. If the "notable" work is the 2008 book, there appear to be almost no citations which use it.
Of the "independent" reviews:
Seto is quoted here and there in the press, but none of those articles are features or profiles about him and his work.
What is not debatable is the crystal clear conflict of interest here. The article creator is a buddy and co-author with the article subject (Cantor cites his own work in the article). Cantor's edit patterns reflect someone who is primarily here for self-promotion and to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends. This should have at the very least been presented to others to add on the talk page of a relevant article or WikiProject per instructions at WP:COI. If he is notable, Seto is even closer to the border of Wikipedia's generous notability criteria than Cantor, and I didn't think someone could squeak by any more narrowly. I'd like a few uninvolved editors to review the content and make a determination, given the close connection. Jokestress (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using the correct title, the book receives 73 Google Scholar hits and 80 citations.— James Cantor (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You made the same mistake in the infobox. After you correct that, too, let's wait and see what some uninvolved editors have to say. You selectively quoted from this general criterion since Seto does not currently meet the academic notability criteria: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I'm not sure this book constitutes "a significant or well-known work." It certainly did not get any traction in the mainstream press. Jokestress (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest tag[edit]

I'd like some uninvolved editors to look at the following COI peacock terms:

  • Seto is a "widely sought after consultant." Not in source.
  • Seto's book, Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children, "received very positive reviews." Not in source, mischaracterization of what seem to be OK reviews at best: "accomplished his goals," etc.
  • He has suggested in his "authoritative book" on pedophilia and sexual offending. Not in source, self-reference.

I've replaced the tag until some uninvolved editors can make a determination. I feel they all should go. Jokestress (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work. To the extent that the policies for other tags serve as a precedent, the tag remains only until there ceases to be any more discussion. And, despite several weeks, a note on WP:N, and the AfD, there has not been any discussion whatsoever. Not a single other editor has identified any content problem. If you would like to post a note at some relevant projects to seek uninvolved editors, I will not oppose the tag remaining a few more days. But, in the continued failure to produce any discussion (and lack any attempts to produce any), the tag will have to go.
I have expanded the content of the book reviews. I initially avoided excessive detail so as not to repeat the very high praise in the reviews, but if that is a central issue anyway, then the expansion is necessary so that others can decide if those reviewers' comments were in line with how I described them.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how things work. You can remove those three examples of WP:COI unsubstantiated puffery yourself, or an uninvolved editor can make a determination. The tag stays until the issues on the talk page are resolved. Jokestress (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try as I might, I have not found a Until Jokestress is happy essay in contrast with WP:Responsible tagging. It's been nearly a month, and there has yet to be any editor indicating any actual content problem. I suggest using the next few days, which I am not obliged to agree to, to posting at relevant projects.— James Cantor (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issues summarized on this talk page remain unresolved, and your clear conflict of interest precludes your removing the tag prior to resolution. An uninvolved editor who has had no previous interactions with either of us is the best option for resolving the matter. Tags can remain in place for years until resolved. We can go to RfC to hasten things. Jokestress (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to RfC or to any of the noticeboards or wikiprojects I have already suggested.— James Cantor (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, where is the RfC? It's been weeks.— James Cantor (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this does seem like a COI double standard in light of you targeting a group of transgender activists you seem to disagree with. If you held the same standard on Susan Stryker, for instance, it doesn't seem you would have slapped a notability tag on the article. Insomesia (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Then I have to point out that in both cases, when uninvolved editors were brought in, they agreed with me that the subject of this page is notable [1] and (thus far) agree with me that Susan Stryker is borderline [2].
2. Do you have anything to say that is about improving this page?
— James Cantor (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. People with a conflict of interest likely should not be editing this page or filling up the talk page. I think they are detrimental to the article being NPOV. Insomesia (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one of the "puff" terms remaining at this date, and I fixed it. See the History page. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC puffery from COI editor in Michael C. Seto?[edit]

The biography for Michael C. Seto was created by User:James Cantor, a single-purpose account whose edits typically promote himself and his friends or denigrate those who do not share their ideologies. He recently created a biography for his friend Michael C. Seto, his colleague at a very small specialty journal. Cantor's bio of his friend contains some language that might be construed as puffery arising from that conflict of interest. I have asked him to remove these three statements, and he has failed to do so for about four weeks. Because James Cantor is very keen to see the COI tag removed from the article about his friend due to its implications regarding his edit patterns, I am opening this RfC in hopes of getting an uninvolved editor to review the following three unsourced statements:

  • Seto is a "widely sought after consultant." Not in source.
  • Seto's book, Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children, "received very positive reviews." Not in source, mischaracterization of what seem to be OK reviews at best: "accomplished his goals," etc.
  • He has suggested in his "authoritative book" on pedophilia and sexual offending. Not in source, self-reference.

I've asked that the COI tag remain until some uninvolved editors can make a determination regarding their inclusion. I feel they all should go. Jokestress (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Poison much?
This article is contested by User:Jokestress, who maintains off-wiki attack sites against me, Seto, and dozens of other real-world scientists whose views do not line up with her preferred flavour of political correctness. Her harassment of scientists has become so vivid as to have been covered by the New York Times. No one supported her AfD of this article, and the tag is, of course, the obvious parting shot.
Non-involved editors should indeed make whatever checks and changes they see fit.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should indeed review the AfD above, where Cantor's obvious conflict of interest was remarked upon by uninvolved editors. After Cantor was described as "an activist minority in the mental health field" by a peer in a peer-reviewed science journal, he took it upon himself to downplay her accomplishments in her Wikipedia bio, the sort of behavior which ultimately led to his being blocked briefly. Promoting himself and his ideas and denigrating people who take issue with his behavior is the ongoing pattern in his work here and off-wiki. Once we have consensus on Cantor's three unsourced claims above, we can take action and remove the tag. Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do try to focus on this page.
I will, however, resist the temptation to correct all of Jokestress' half-truths. (Alluding to an admin who blocked me, but none of the several to came to unblock me all saying the first admin was incorrect?, etc.).
Despite it being perhaps irresistible to Jokestress, this is not a unofficial RfC/U of me, and it is disruptive to hold pages hostage due to whatever editor's obvious emotions regarding me personally, my alleged politics, or any of many of my colleagues. (Anyone who would like to discuss the missing parts of Jokestress' other half-truths is welcome to ask about them on my talkpage.)
— James Cantor (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This bio is not being being "held hostage." You refuse to remove three instances of unsubstantiated puffery you wrote about your friend, so I asked for a COI tag to remain in place until uninvolved editors can review them and reach consensus. That's how third-party dispute resolution works. Jokestress (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "very positive" exactly because it underplayed the reviews, which included each of: "outstanding," "excellent," "nuanced," and "should not be missed." To say that my summarizing those terms as "very positive" constitutes puffery is to cease to have a reasonable discussion. I chose "widely consulted" similarly: After three RS's to the subject being consulted by the Congress of the United States, it would be transparently disruptive to say that the subject does not merit "widely consulted".— James Cantor (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Very positive" is a peacock term. Seto got positive reviews in a few obscure journals and trade newsletters, none of which have their own articles here. He got one consulting gig per the one USSC date (cited four times) and attended some meeting where he is not mentioned in the source. If "very positive" changes to "positive" and "widely sought after consultant" changes to "consultant," that should deal with the most egregious puffery. That should all be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. Jokestress (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the term, "very positive" is much milder than the terms appearing in the reviews. I would have no problem replacing "very positive" with the originals. The issue has become moot, however, from my point of view: With the relevant passages of the actual reviews now on the mainpage, the description of those reviews is now pretty superfluous.
  • "Consultant" without other modifier is misleading; it suggests a paid consultant rather than an academic expert who provides such consultations to public institutions for free only for (their perception of) the public good. "International expert" is an incontrovertible descriptor and would be an acceptable replacement.
  • I have requested input from COIN here.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User James Cantor likely should greatly expand their self-declared list of articles they won't edit to include broadly construed subjects that they won't touch. This discussion feels like a repeat of past issues. Blanchard et al hold what many consider to be controversial views and this editor has a history of promoting Blanchard et al and their views (See this search from their former account). Insomesia (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "uninvolved" editors, one is generally not referring to editors just walking out of conflicts on previous pages [3][4][5] (which are entirely unrelated to this one, incidentally). If Insomesia believes I have violated WP:COI, I invite her to deal with the issue appropriately, such as by bringing it to WP:COIN. Very obviously, the complaint is not actually about this page at all. — James Cantor (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm often the one initiating RfC's and calling for wider discussion to blunt conflicts. Some articles and editors seem to generate conflict and if you care about the articles that is part of the issue. That is not the same as a COI concern that I think may have a basis here and seems to be a perennial issue with you over a long stretch of time. I can't speak for Jokestress but as for myself I don't desire to get entangled with protracted and circular arguments as that's not why I'm here. I see this RfC as a last resort to bring NPOV editing to this article. Insomesia (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that we are talking about four words? ("very" and "widely sought after") I don't think your high octane reaction is going to convince many uninvolved editors that your motivation has anything to do with this page. I can only repeat my suggestion that you bring your concern to an appropriate forum.— James Cantor (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, I think the problems may be more core to sourcing, bias, etc which are common COI problems. And as the title of this RfC suggests this is exactly the correct forum although a wider community forum might be needed as this is the third article I've seen COI issues on, and history shows a pattern of COI issues. Insomesia (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that Jokestress has something like a conflict of interest in that she maintains an off wiki attack site on some of the participants here and the subject of this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-wiki attack sites are historically punishable by banning if serious enough, definitely agree Jokestress has COI because of that, or at least a vendetta and should step away from these articles. — raekyt 05:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page does have an attack like feeling the way things are worded and such... (that's what I'm referring too above). — raekyt 05:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Cantor wants to characterize anyone who doesn't agree with him or whose views don't conform to his self-identity as operating an "attack site." My page on Seto, written ten years ago, contains no attacks. It's just a summary of his work. Please let me know what you consider an attack on that page. I am very familiar with the pathologization of gender identity and have written about it academically. I am sure Cantor considers Karen Franklin's site an "attack site" because he also disagrees with her academic position. If you want more details on his machinations here and off-wiki, leave me a note on my talk page. Jokestress (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horrendous COI and puff I depuffed the "organization" article which James Cantor is clearly associated with [6], and he ought well to stay clear of this discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, James Cantor and Jokestress appear to have COI. Cantor with the more apparent COI. There are several weasels in the article and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of his books and papers. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to agree here, serious COI, and puffery. The article should just be whittled down to a stub leaving only the most reliable sources, and let another un-involved 3rd party that has interest build the article. As for notability for inclusion, I think the list of peer-reviewed papers, and probably the book, should establish that... Recommend James Cantor step away from the article, and all articles he has a COI on, and let others handle it. — raekyt 05:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What editors should not do[edit]

Editors should not attempt to categorize anything as "positive" or "negative" or "outstanding" or "disappointing" on their own hook. They should find reliable sources that make the categorizations. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of his book. . .[edit]

I removed them as excessive praise: See Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, and respond here if you think otherwise. Thank you so much, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011 A.G. summit . . .[edit]

Removed the sentence inasmuch as the Source does not mention him as a participant. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request.[edit]

Tag removed. Wilipino (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the COI tag is now long over, but I think it would be better if it were removed by an editor other than me.— James Cantor (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_C._Seto&oldid=1209523323"