Talk:Kenneth Zucker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inappropriateness of Jokestress' creation of Zucker page.

I am a colleague of Kenneth Zucker, and I am concerned that Jokestress/Andrea James has written a biographical page on Zucker. Jokestress/Andrea James has previously written the follwing letter to CAMH regarding Zucker (and others), thus becoming an actor in the events. Despite the rights she has to express her opinions, it does not seem appropriate for her to be involved in writing the BLP's of the people once she had involved herself in their lives, such as by contacting their employers.

http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/letter_to_consultant_brought_in_to_clean_up_camh_clarke_institute/ —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not create this page (User:Cstaffa did on 17 June); I did expand it to present a fuller summation of Zucker's career based on reliable sources. I am happy to discuss any of the content if there is a concern. I would note that I have also written many biographies about people profiled on Quackwatch (I am a Quackwatch affiliate) and worked hard to maintain WP:NPOV in those cases as well. Jokestress (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy! Controversy!!

You know, I really think Wikipedia articles do not need to use the word 'controversial' quite so much, and not in such prominent positions. An article does not have to start with, 'Kenneth J. Zucker is an American-Canadian psychologist and sexologist best known for his controversial work on gender identity disorder in children.' Give us a break! Probably pretty much everything in sexology is controversial in one way or another; introduce the controversy bit later on, not right in the introduction. Skoojal (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about omitting the word from the introduction. But also, I would not say that his "work" is well-known, but rather his "approach to treatment". Cstaffa (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, what Kenneth Zucker does is not good enough to be termed controversial. He is supported by his close associates and NARTH for whom he does fundraising (See http://www.narth.com/menus/future.html) The rest of the world is opposed. There is not enough support to rise to the level of controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.216.193 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Zucker has absolutely no association with NARTH and most certainly has never done fund-raising for them. NARTH has a long history of taking quotes out of context in order to make it look like various sexologists support various NARTH ideologies. In fact, there is an article about it in this month's newsletter for GLBT psychologists in the American Psychological Association: http://www.apadivision44.org/publications/2008summer.pdf (page 11). Such rumors are spread farther by websites such as Andrea James' (www.tsroadmap.com), which is part of why I believe it is inappropriate for her to be editing Zucker's bio page.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We are all aware of your objections to my editing of this article. Spreading rumors that I spread rumors isn't really contributing to improving the article, though. If you believe I have written something false or erroneous offsite, please send me a note and a citation, and I will look into it. If you believe there is something false or erroneous in the article or on this talk page, we can discuss that here. Let's not play "guilt by association" by linking me to statements made by other editors. Jokestress (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no need to spread rumors. On Jokestress' website here http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/kenneth-zucker.html , Jokestress says, "Zucker promotes his NARTH-like notions of reparative therapy for kids with gender variance...", "Zucker is a darling of the "ex-gay" movement because of his work "curing" gender-variant children. Here is a piece featuring his work via ex-gay group NARTH", and so on. It is up to readers to decide whether such repetitive insinuations amount to rumor-spreading. My belief is that it does.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on my site saying he has done fundraising for them or has any official association. It just says NARTH sure likes to quote him a lot, which means he must be saying some things that appeal to the mission of their group: reparative therapy. As the discussion on the reparative therapy talk page indicates, both NARTH and Zucker's colleagues see a connection between his work and the aims of other reparative therapists. Jokestress (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned comment said fundraising, not I. I said only that such rumors are spread by you, which they are. When there is so much smoke and still no fire after several years, it is reasonable to start hypothesizing that someone is planting smokebombs.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, enough with the ad hominem attacks on Andrea. It you have some beef with what she has written on Wikipedia then say what it is that is written that is wrong. We already know you don't people like her, it makes no difference. As to NARTH, their exact quote is "editor Dr. Kenneth Zucker offered the following comments about NARTH..."For readers interested in learning about the intellectual and ideological positions of NARTH, a subscription to the NARTH Bulletin is worth the few dollars it costs."" If it were untrue that Zucker takes that position he would have stopped NARTH from slandering him long ago. So how exactly is asking, in ANY context, people to send NARTH money to subscribe to their (expletive deleted) journal not fundraising for NARTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.216.193 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinions of non-experts on controversial topics.

WP:Opinion says "At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." The authors of opinion pieces in blogs or in The Atlantic do not meet that criterion. I have therefore removed Jokestress' insertion of quotes from those sources.
— James Cantor (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OPINION is an essay and not even a guideline, let alone policy. Your belief that we can't cite journalists and authors seems rooted in what these two journalists say, since elsewhere you vigorously press for inclusion of journalists' favorable coverage of related controversies. Shall I reinstate those two reliable tertiary sources, or do you plan to wikilawyer on this? Jokestress (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Coverage in Salon.com and The Atlantic

Per the section above, User:James Cantor has removed the following two tertiary sources published this week:

• Journalist Tracy Clark-Flory wrote, "[T]he therapy certainly is frighteningly reminiscent of past attempts to 'cure' homosexuals."

• Journalist Hanna Rosin reported in 2008 that Zucker had "become a pariah to the most-vocal activists in the American transgender community" because of his views on gender identity disorder: "He seems unlikely to bless the condition as psychologically healthy, especially in young children."

We are seeking additional opinions, as he claims only "experts" are allowed to comment on controversial topics. Jokestress (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a more accurate description of my point is that the opinions which merit mention in WP are those of individuals who are expert on the topic, as described in WP:Opinion. Because WP:Opinion is not "binding", the input of other editors would be appreciated.

Because Jokestress and I have the same disagreement regarding the same material at Gender identity disorder in children, I believe it would be logical to discuss these two issues together on the talk page there.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Therapeutic Intervention Section

I'm wondering if a portion of this section meets the NPOV guidelines. When describing what Zucker and his associates believe that their treatment can do, there's a parenthetical aside, which seems to state the opinion of whomever wrote, or altered, that portion of the article. I feel it doesn't belong, but I hesitate to remove it without opinions from others. The aside I'm referring to is this: "(i.e., it is easier to change a child than a society intolerant of gender diversity)". Thesuperpower (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's part of an attributed quote, unchanged since the quote went in. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Zucker (and other sexologists)

Regarding my intent, you are both correct: As Dick alludes to, Zucker spent his entire career in Canada even though he was born in the U.S. I believe that categorizing Zucker under "Sexologists" rather than "American sexologists" would be more helpful to readers looking for more such persons by looking under "Category:Sexologists". As Meco alludes to, I made the same change to multiple pages about sexologists, not just this one. There are many other sexologists who were born in the U.S., but spent their careers in Canada (Ray Blanchard, Irv Binik, me, etc.). Similarly, very many European sexologists were scattered due to WWI. So, my opinion is that very little information is gained by indicating country of birth.

As I said to Meco (we had a brief conversation about this on my talk page), I had in mind Categorization_of_people: "The place of birth is rarely notable from the perspective of an individual, although it may be notable from the perspective of local studies." In very few cases is the birth place of the sexologist relevant, and very many of these people became notable only in association with their subsequent citizenships rather than within their nations of origin. So, again, I think the general category would be more useful to readers, and letting other categories denote nations of birth/later-citizenship.

Regardless of which way is the WP policy, I caution anyone editing those categories; very many of the entries were inaccurate. — James Cantor (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea of [Category:Sexologists] being a non-diffusing category? That way, all sexologists would be listed under [Category:Sexologists] in addition to [Category: (Nation) Sexologists]? — James Cantor (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that would go against the current trend. I don't see sexologists as being set apart from other professions, and there is now an established practice of categorizing by country (except for the option of categorizing into the non-country-specific parent category where only very few articles would be eligible, but even that consideration seems to be given diminishing weight). Mind you, the country-association does not limit itself to the country of birth. Any country in which the person has had a residence and practiced their profession ostensibly can be added, as I did with the present article. That should take care of any misgivings of a relevant association not being adequately represented. It would therefore not be advisable to add Category:Sexologists in addition to the country-specific categories, in my opinion. __meco (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have very little experience with categories and would certainly defer to others' observations of any trends in their application. However, the present situation does to fit many of the characteristics mentioned in WP:Overcategorization, including WP:OC#NARROW, WP:SMALLCAT, and WP:DEFINING ("Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided"). I can certainly imagine the overcategorization guideline being re-written to reflect the trend you perceive, but until then, making Category:Sexologists into a non-diffusing category would seem a compromise that would allow us both to achieve both our goals. (Mine, to have a single list of all sexologists for the curious reader looking for such a list, and yours, to have all the nationality information reflected in categorization.) — James Cantor (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Given no objections, I'll go ahead with the non-diffusion categorizing and add category:sexologists without removing country-specific ones.— James Cantor (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This biography had some serious POV issues. In order appearing in the article:

• The weasel word "orders" (does he have a military history we don't know about?)
• An entire paragraph of paraphrases and out-of-context quotes from a single Village Voice piece. The quotes were mangled to make his views appear more extreme, like "Zucker believes that failing to control a child's gender expression at a young age and seek early counseling for transgendered behavior is neglectful." instead of "can be considered 'some type of emotional neglect.'".
• Guilt by association in comparing his methods to those of Dr. John Money, which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia:BLP#Balance. Dr. Money is not the only representative clinician; it appears he was named due to his famously poor outcome with David Reimer.
• Another guilt by association in discussing a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer (which he only published). Does the World Health Organization's opinion on a study written by someone else really belong in this article? I added context from the Times piece cited.
• Some cherry picking of negative quotes from news and journal articles, which I balanced with positive ones or responses from Zucker.
• Another guilt by association with Ray Blanchard. This is an article about Kenneth Zucker; the reader is not looking for the controversy over independent work by Ray Blanchard.

Accurrent (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale POV tag?

The tag has been in place, but there has been no discussion for two years. Can I suggest the tag be removed?— James Cantor (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll remove the tag if someone hasn't already done so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

removed from article until cites foung

I removed the following because they're uncited and I don't think they add anything to the article:

Zucker is at odds with gay and transgender groups, but distances himself from organizations that share this distinction. Zucker believes that failing to control a child's gender expression at a young age and seek early counseling for transgendered behavior can be considered "some type of emotional neglect." He claims some parents may have been swayed by an activist transsexual agenda and "cement...in more and more" behaviors that may not result from transsexualism. Instead Zucker advises such children work through their hatred of their bodies before being accepted as transsexuals.

Zucker supports the early intervention of children with ambiguous genitalia to be assigned and reared as female, or more generally as "the gender that carries the best prognosis for good reproductive function, good sexual function, normal-looking external genitalia and physical appearance, and a stable gender identity."

EChastain (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenneth Zucker. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brainchildmag.com/essays/fall2001_wilkinson.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://washblade.com/2008/5-30/news/national/12682.cfm

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} 17:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Zucker. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725181844/http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/PR_052808 to http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr_052808

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) 15:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)