Talk:Keith Ablow

Shouldn't there be...

Shouldn't there be some mention on this page of his conservative ideology and controversial opinions on gender politics? The only thing approaching this is the mention of his book co-authored by Glenn Beck. More research needs to be done here, this is clearly a vanity piece.

Especially his recent, and not so recent homophobic and transphobic comments about Chaz Bono. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/05/18/177426/fox-news-transphobia-wipe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.39.117 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a repeated issue:

• May 17, 2011, "Inside the Mind of Chaz Bono" [taken down]
• April 11, 2011, "J. Crew Plants the Seeds for Gender Identity"
• September 02, 2011, "Don't Let Your Kids Watch Chaz Bono On 'Dancing With the Stars'"

It's enough to make one wonder what's hiding in Keith's closet. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. --Hirsutism (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The notion that you would suggest someone is gay because he criticizes the glorification of transgenderism is hateful. Stick with the issues. Character assassination is not necessary. 71.234.15.99 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No, since associating or working with someone doesn't mean you share that person's viewpoints or ideology. He is also not a political commentator, so mentioning his perceived ideology is irrelevant and prejudicial. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 13:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any material that anyone knows of, linking Ablow's obsessive interest in Chas Bono with his own latent homosexuality and attraction to the transgendered celebrity? -- 4.88.11.6 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ablow's criticism of transgenderism, particularly in the sense of exposing children and adolescents to it, is now echoed by many, many pundits. Notably, Meghan Kelly apologized on-air, more than once, for taking issue with Dr. Ablow's early opposition to Chaz Bono appearing on Dancing with the Stars. 71.234.15.99 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I do find it odd that there is no mention of Ablow's comments on homosexuality/transsexuality. He has written a large number of articles on the topic and his views on the subject are not unknown or a small matter. They have even put him at odds with the American Psychiatric Association. I think it is safe to say that putting his views on this page is something that we can't afford to leave out. Ayzmo (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be something also. I know I recently reverted an IP attempt to put some of this stuff in, but purely because it was unsourced. I don't think it's a good idea to use his own writing as a source on his views with something this controversial, either. As long as we can find reliable third party sources that discuss his views, I think we should put stuff in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree that it's pretty much fact-based to say that his views on gender and sex (the attacking of transgender people, the comments about how painting boys' nails pink will ruin them) are clearly at odds with APA position statements and with current research about how gender identity is formed. Triangular (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters

Is a liberal group with an agenda. They have openly admitted they are after fox news. They are a non-profit with a political agenda.

I do not see how having 7 sources here from Media Matters can be worth a dime.Woods01 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-profit with a political agenda- as opposed to a for-profit organisation with a political agenda, such as Fox News? Considering the amount of attention Media Matters gets from the media, and its political influence I would think an attempt to remove them as a legitimate source in wikipedia will have to be supported with some solid arguments. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything is "political" if you make it that way. Media Matters is going to lean toward "liberal" politics if you want to use those terms because anti-censorship and basing media in fact rather than opinion are "liberal" views. In this particular instance, it's "liberal" to discuss transgender individuals based on what research and best practices tell us, and it's "conservative" to demonize them based on religious ideology that they may or may not personally subscribe to. But I think if we remove the labels, it's obvious to see which approach is solid journalism and which approach is the morally correct way to treat a fellow human. Triangular (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a list of groups with no agenda. -- 4.88.11.6 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

American Psychiatric Association Membership

I'm aware that Dr. Ablow has voiced his intention to leave the APA but I am not aware that the APA has made a statement about "discrimination not being tolerated" as the link implies. Nor does the link lead to any statement by the APA on Ablow/discrimination not that one can be found on the site that relates in any way. It just leads to their news page. Contrary to the statement in the lede, Ablow is still a member of the APA as far as I can find. Also, searches of "discrimination will not be tolerated" and apa/american psychological association come up with nothing related.Ayzmo (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The APA code of ethics and standards of practice, state that clinicians must not discriminate based on sex, gender, gender identity, etc. There also are guidelines for working with transgender people that pretty much sum up that the research says most trans people know they're trans, it's pointless and damaging to try and convince them they're not, etc. Triangular (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article currently carries a 'nominated to be checked for neutrality' tag, but there is no discussion of this subject apparent on this talk page. I checked it; I could not find any obvious non-neutrality in the article. It is suggested above that the article is biased by omitting information about Ablow's views in re homosexuality & transgender surgery, but apparently those views are not so controversial as to have provided a reliable secondary source for their existence. I am removing the neutrality tag. Eaglizard (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, NOT a neutral article as it is makes no mention of the FACT that Ablow PREVAILED in the two court actions that were actually heard in court: 1) He DEFEATED the allegation of Janna McCarthy of Newburyport, MA that she had been harassed by him. 2) A malpractice tribunal found NO evidence of malpractice in the one case it heard. 71.234.15.99 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Blatent bias, personal opinion/judgement, violate BLP policy?

"Ablow has promoted pseudoscientific commentaries about gender identity.[19]"

The footnote links to an interesting article, still available, concerning the "Goldwater Rule". I didn't read the entire article, which seems to only mention Ablow to illustrate a point, and makes this statement:

"Nor was Dr. Ablow sanctioned for his pseudoscientific commentaries on how parents may create gender identity problems in their children and how transgender individuals do not exist.[32]"

The footnote [32] is an article by Ablow himself on Foxnews.com.

Baldly stating that Ablow's commentary is "pseudoscientific" (or anything else, really) is not for Wikipedia to judge, if it wishes to maintain any semblance of objectivity. The author of [19] stated an opinion, in passing, which carries no particular weight.

How hard is it to just write the "APA claims", or similar encyclopedic wording?

Suggest deleting the sentence or re-writing. The entire "commentary & controversy" section is better named "criticism" and reads like a hit piece from a partisan blog. The non-criticisms sections are relatively sparse listing of his book titles & TV career, with no hint of what his ideas are.

BTW, I'm not a fan of Ablow at all; just taken aback by the complete lack of balance here.

Deepfrieddough (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: "Ablow has promoted pseudoscientific commentaries about gender identity.[19]" Deepfrieddough (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section

Controversy sections are against the WP Manual of Style. All the text in this section should be merged with the main text. Ashmoo (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

PR versions by COI accounts

A number of accounts, all of whom bear the hallmarks of PR COI accounts, have inserted flattering, non-NPOV and poorly sourced text about Ablow, and removed reliably sourced text about the controversies in his life. These COI accounts should be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are my changes being undone?

Hello,

My changes are being consistently undone on this page. Things like removing the Prescription Art section? I'd like to know why this is being done. Not looking for any trouble here.

136.159.213.4 (talk)an editor —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My bad

Okay so I just read the section by Snooganssnoogans explaining why they were deleting my changes. Didn't see that before adding the section before this. Pal, I am not a COI. Please leave my changes as they are. Only have good intentions here, and all of changes are cited. NOTHING is false and if they happen to be flattering changes then so be it. I'd like to reiterate EVERYTHING IS CITED and ACCURATE so there is no reason to reverse my changes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.213.4 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Reaching Consensus

The correct thing to do in this situation is stop the edit warring by reaching consensus. Clearly both sides of this "war" are willing to undo and redo edits indefinitely. I see no problem in the changes being made because they do not directly violate any Wikipedia policy. Other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.213.141 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. After you are reverted, you post the changes here and discuss. Do not reinstate them into the article unless there is editorial consensus to do so. Your editing pattern appears to be that of someone with a close connection with the bio. Please post your proposed content here on the talk page and discuss it with other editors. The editor who reverted you is a seasoned, experienced editor and he has stated on the COI noticeboard that your editing patterns appears to inject POV content into the article. Let's discuss your proposed changes. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

For instance, some character assassin keeps stating Dr. Ablow is a "former psychiatrist" when there is no such thing. Once a psychiatrist, always a psychiatrist. Having a suspended (for now) license to practice medicine is quite another thing. Many retired psychiatrists are still psychiatrists. Many psychiatrists who choose to leave the field and start businesses are still psychiatrists. 71.234.15.99 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)