Talk:James Cantor/Archive 2

Request for edit
I'd like to mention that James Cantor is also a member of the Advisory Council of Prostasia Foundation, but I'm connected so there would be a conflict of interest. Can someone else verify and make this edit? Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 05-DEC-2018
Regards,  Spintendo   21:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Needless to say, advisory council members of that organization act as volunteers and do not vote or exercise a direct operational role.
 * 2) The work that an article's subject performs voluntarily is generally not required in articles. In this case, the subject's paid professional associations are listed, but any volunteer work performed without pay, whether it be serious or a hobby, need not be listed, per WP:HOBBY.

Writing this article like a fan page, promotional page, or diary
Banglange, you are clearly. It is best that you do not deny that, since anyone with deductive abilities should be able to see that the and  accounts are operated by the same person. I'm not sure why you are editing with a different account, and have been using it since 2015 when the Starburst9 account already existed, but you should read up on WP:SOCK and WP:Clean start.

As seen at Talk:James Cantor/Archive 1 and Talk:James Cantor/Archive 1, there were issues with your edits to this article before, as noted by Tomwsulcer, KateWishing and myself. You are editing in the same problematic way as before. This is not a fan page, promotional page, or diary. Stop writing it like one. See WP:DIARY. And as indicated by changes I made with this edit, it did not go unnoticed by me that you snuck in a controversial "pedophilia is a sexual orientation" statement and gave the article a "pedophiles are sexual minorities" feel. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This article (as of January 2, 2019) read like a promo for Cantor, full of quotes praising him and the kind of cute detail more suited to People magazine than an encyclopedia. To quote Writing_better_articles, "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." Check out articles about other psychologists that have been rated WP:GA to see better models, e.g. Steven Pinker who is much more well-known, widely-quoted, and influential than Cantor but whose article is not larded with puff quotes about his influence or personality. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Transsexual bill of rights
The page where Cantor's blog included, in 2009, a "bill of transsexual rights" is now 404; the replacement link to archive also shows archive of 404 page. These opinions of Cantor do not seem particularly important or influential, however. A news search for "james cantor" + transsexual" reveals no wider interest in this opinion of his. If the "bill of rights" gets covered by some RS then it belongs in the article. Without that coverage, including it is OR. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This discussion is better had without me of course, but FWIW, a working URL for my Bill of Transsexual Rights is http://www.sexologytoday.org/2012/03/a-bill-of-transsexual-right.html. It was first published in the newsletter of the LGBT division of the American Psychological Association, and then I made it available on my blog.  It still gets brought up now and then, such as this podcast host asking me about it: https://player.fm/series/hidden-truth-show-with-jim-breslo/s2e22-trans-noted-univ-of-toronto-sexologist-dr-james-cantor-aap-policy-statement-on-trans-kids-is-wrong. — James Cantor (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would make sense for the James Cantor article to include information about the clash with AAP about their policy on trans kids, or about the controversy concerning detransition percentages. Both those topics have attracted interest from RS, so one could imagine a person reading about those controversies coming to Wikipedia to get more information about them and finding none. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, FWIW I agree. Happy to provide whatever links/RS's I can for the content you'd like, but as I say, discussion about what content to include (or not) is better had without me. — James Cantor (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some RS that mention Cantor in connection with the controversy:  This Atlantic article discusses same issues, cites several experts but not Cantor. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

RS for my blog.
FWIW, some mainstream RS's to my blog include:
 * https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/transgender-orthodoxy-kenneth-zucker-vindicated/
 * https://omny.fm/shows/on-point-with-alex-pierson/toronto-doctor-in-trouble-for-comments-about-trans

and this submission to the U.S. Supreme Court:
 * https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-658/76790/20181219123208440_18-658%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Dr.%20Miriam%20Grossman%20et%20al..pdf

— James Cantor (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Toronto Sun article a better source for statement where citation was requested, so I added it and removed the template. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)