User talk:James Cantor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder in Children[edit]

Hi James. I had an opportunity to review the sources you offered to replace Green (1987) for persistence/desistence rates of gender identity disorder in children. In summary, I am extremely impressed with Drummond et al (2008), and find Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis (2008) to be methodologically suspect but useable with caveats. Would you like to hammer out a rewrite of paragraph three of the lead section together, or will you agree to offer comment on a good-faith revision if I submit one? --April Arcus (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry for my delay, April. I am perfectly happy to read and discuss anything you'd like to propose, but, as Flyer22 says, we should be using secondary sources (such as the several she listed).— James Cantor (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help with sourcing on a subject marginally within your range of study[edit]

Sorry for jumping out of nowhere, but would you mind looking at this user draft? Do scholarly sources exist? There's a very loud discussion going on here about whether this subject is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. I'm feeling lots of heat but seeing virtually no light in the clash of ideas. Are there academic sources on this (surely common) phenomenon? I'm not asking you to wade into the discussion, but you may be aware of sourcing in a field where many editors claim no such sources exist. Any guidance would be helpful. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Buster; I'm happy to contribute what I can. I took a look at the RSs on the draft and the scholarly lit. The RSs look fine overall, but generally provide only passing mention of the topic rather than significant coverage. That is, they seem sufficient for sourcing individual statements, but not for establishing notability. The few sources that do provide substantial coverage use varying definitions/operationalizations of the term. That is, although they would seem better for establishing notability of the phrase as a topic, it is not clear that they are actually referring to exactly the same topic in the first place. (This is true also for the other cites: They are referring to overlapping, but differing phenomena. None should really be used to express general statements about the whole phenomenon, despite that they use the same phrase.)
The scholarly literature contained very little. Donnelly and Burgess appear to be about all there is. There are other research literatures that use the phrase (such as prison research referring to sexual behavior within correctional institutions), but nothing that would suggest "significant" coverage, especially since that article was published 15 years ago and not much has come forth since. So, although I can't say someone is crazy for wanting to pull an article together, it probably boils down to exactly how low one is willing to go in interpreting "significant" coverage. (And I'm not hearing about any salt: If the topic does become of wider academic interest, and article can certainly come forth later.) Is that a help? (I'd be happy to repeat this in whatever forum.)
— James Cantor (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Very kind of you James. I very much appreciate the eyes of someone who knows the ground better than myself. Just my opinion, but considering the universe set of all human beings, I'd think the subset of humans who are celibate involuntarily would be huge, including almost every person on the planet at some point in each life. Perhaps there is a better nomenclature. The arguments I'm seeing formulated against inclusion in the AFD/RFC and in previous Talk:Celibacy discussions seem of a very poor quality. As I've mentioned, there's a heat to light ratio which seems to me wildly disproportionate. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy to do it. It's amazing how much we don't know about basics in sex. Other than HIV, there has never been much opportunity to fund decent sex research on many topics!— James Cantor (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If one considers the short length of time we've been studying medical, sociological and psychological topics in a scientific way, one could assert humans know virtually nothing about their own sexual behaviors. I've seen arguments that incel would be a medical topic and therefore subject to the properly rigorous standards of WP:MEDRS, but to me this seems a social phenomenon, not a medical one. Do you share this opinion? BusterD (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly imagine a world in which it would be a more sizeable topic, but I don't think there is any way to say what field "owns" the topic. The medical field will have commentary about its medical aspects (and there will be debates about medicalizing a natural phenomenon), the social sciences will have commentary about its social aspects (and there will be debates about the identify politics), etc. So, I guess I don't have a strong opinion over whether MDRS is the most appropriate standard.— James Cantor (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of the RFC/AFD was no consensus for inclusion, which I can accept for now. However, I will continue to research this topic (being IMHO a social state affecting virtually every human being at some point in their lives) and build an offline draft for discussion at some point in the future. Would you be willing to send me notice of RS if you were to stumble across such during your normal daily study? I'd appreciate your help and I'm in no hurry. As an active wikipedian you've got a good set of eyes for sources in this field marginally related to your specialty. If I can ever be of assistance, please call on me. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to inform[edit]

Hello, I thought it is appropriate to tell you that I informed Women Against Registry [1] of your existence as they are planning a class action lawsuit in federal court and are asking people to help in gathering articles to be used in the lawsuit. I referred them to your homepage and told about what I know of your views on these matters. In other news: Mongo is acting like a Mongo on AWA article once again :/ ViperFace (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ViperFace. No problem at all! I'd be happy to help them however I can.— James Cantor (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
ViperFace, are you aware of WP:No legal threats? Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Informing people of relevant policies is always a good idea. But to clarify the above, Viper wasn't threatening, or even involved, in any such activity. He was just letting me know that he told a non-WP group that I might be able to assist with a non-WP lawsuit involving only non-WP people.— James Cantor (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello James Cantor. As a general question, do you have easy access to articles in the Archives of Sexual Behavior? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. What can I grab for you? (And I'd need your email address to send it to.) — James Cantor (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I need Kenneth Zucker's review of Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity and Growing Up Straight by George Alan Rekers. Although it is a negative review, it would help me to establish the notability of the books concerned. I could give you my email address, but there is another option: if you wanted to, you could add the review to the articles about Rekers's books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to digest and add it myself, but it was no trouble to retrieve the review itself. Just let me know where to send it! — James Cantor (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please send it to I quite understand if you don't want to work on the articles yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.