Talk:Kenneth Zucker: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:24, 26 June 2008 editMarionTheLibrarian (talk \| contribs)1,153 edits →Controversy! Controversy!!: whoops← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:33, 27 June 2008 edit undo69.226.216.193 (talk) →Controversy! Controversy!!Next edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:
	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.<br/>		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.<br/>
	—] (]) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)		—] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

Revision as of 01:33, 27 June 2008

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

Categories: