Talk:James Cantor

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)

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[8]. This division/newsletter discussed boycotting and other options due to a hotel's support of Prop 8[9]. 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[10]. I'd have to concede that the article the Jokestress pointed out, "Empowering Our Clients and Ourselves: Integrating Psychology with Political Activism."[11] 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)

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. [12]

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, [13]

5. Should we include this quotation from a paper presented by Dr. Joelle Ruby Ryan at the 2009 International Foundation for Gender Education conference: [14]

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. [15]

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)

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? [16]
• 2002 Toronto Star article, but I can't see what it says about him. [17]
• 2007 BBC article about his research [18]
• 2007 BBC radio interview about his research [19]
• 2007 Telepolis article about his research [20]
• 2009 Toronto Star article about his research [21]
• 2010 CNN article mentioning him in passing. [22]

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[23] she clearly hasn't read[24] and making personal comments to avoid discussing her actions. BitterGrey (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If it works...

Christopher Connor inserted a section[25] that everyone seemed to be OK with, averting one potentially problematic issue. Now it and it's two references are gone[26], 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: [27]. 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." [28] 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[29] might not leave much time for research. Congrats on making #87[30] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)