Talk:Jesse Singal

Contested deletion

The reviewing admin is invited to view the deleted versions and see that this one is very different. Things have changed since the AfD and the last G4 and this version is much better than the 2020 version if I recall correctly. Per WP:G4: It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, [and] pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Pinging Colin M as the creator of this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen the deleted version, but it's described at the AfD discussion as "a single-sentence ten-word article", so I don't think G4 is appropriate. Colin M (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Article should not be deleted. Singal has grown in prominence in recent years (including with a recent trade paperback being published) and this article seems more then sufficient to meet wikipedia standards. The article for deletion page I found was from 2018 [1] and seems to be for a less substantial article.-Pengortm (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That's as may be, but I don't see any sources in the article yet that would be WP:SIGCOV of Singal or satisfy WP:BASIC. If the article doesn't improve in that respect, I'd be happy to take it to AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

When I looked for sources a year ago to see if I could create an article, I didn't find enough that I felt GNG were met. Some more have become available since then, though 13 refs (plus 4 citations of Singal), some of which are not primarily about Singal, is still not great, and puts a cap on how detailed / what class the article could be even if fleshed out as much as RS allow. OTOH, I see articles kept at AfD with less. Indeed, re-reading WP:BASIC is startling, it's so much more restrictive than AfD outcomes I've seen, especially for articles on men. (Women and non-binary people are a different story, to the extent that I'm not even linking an example of the latter lest it WP:BEAN another AfD.) IMO it's borderline (and as an aside, given that he's raised the spectre of litigation against a number of people he views as having criticized him, and their employers, and acquaintances, etc, it seems likely to be a magnet for trouble), but I'm not sure deletion would be right (or would get consensus at AfD). -sche (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there's not a lot of coverage of Singal per se, but I think it easily meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it's interpreted at AfD. (Not to get all "other stuff exists", but in terms of sourcing, I think this article compares very favourably to a randomly selected article from Category:American science journalists.) Also, when considering whether this article is useful to readers, I think one important aspect is that it serves as a 'hub' for a few related topics which are closer to the borderline of being independently notable, namely: his podcast, his Atlantic article on youth transition, and his book. Also, the fact that this article has 19 mainspace incoming wikilinks is a decent indication of notability/utility of the article to readers. Colin M (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources re cover model for Atlantic story

@Freepsbane: the third paragraph of the Atlantic section is cited to the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, but per the editor's note at the top of https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/09/are-news-companies-already-putting-diversity-pledges-on-the-back-burner/ it looks like it should actually be attributed to the newsletter "The Front Page" put out by The Objective. Nieman lab is just hosting their content. But also, when that piece talks about the cover model, it's just summarizing a story done by the Poynter Institute. So it seems like it would be preferable to cite that original reporting directly? Colin M (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: If you recall our guidelines: secondary sources (as in regarded sources summarizing primary sources) are highly preferred to primary sources. If you wish to supplement it with primary sources you may, as is Nieman considers them part of its publication. And this article desperately needs weighty sources if it wants to establish notability.Freepsbane (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Poynter Institute story is not a primary source. Colin M (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, so it should be added but Nieman being a higher order secondary source and regarded as the most credible review on journalism clearly is important to establishing this articles viability.Freepsbane (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim that "The Front Page" is a part of the Nieman Foundation? That's not the impression I get from the editor's note at the top of the page. Colin M (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, it is part of their collection and has a dedicated section https://www.niemanlab.org/collection/the-objective/ I would encourage you to remember we need reliable sources, preferably secondary. If this article is merely a collection of primary sources, blog posts and a patreon, then it risks merely being a vanity page. Please see their story is featured amongst the rest of that group.Freepsbane (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

All that shows is that their content is on the NiemanLab website. We already know that, but they're attributed to "The Objective staff", and they carry the following notice:

Editor’s note: The Front Page is a biweekly newsletter from The Objective, a publication that offers reporting, first-person commentary, and reported essays on how journalism has misrepresented or excluded specific communities in coverage, as well as how newsrooms have treated staff from those communities. We happily share each issue with Nieman Lab readers.

This seems like basically a WP:SYNDICATED situation. If an AP story is printed in the Pacoima Gazette, it should be attributed to the AP, not the Gazette. Colin M (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, not sure where you're coming from with the primary source concern. There are currently 19 sources cited, of which 4 are primary. Colin M (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, half of them are blogs, others seem to be from people who have connections for good or ill. I am concerned that very grandiose claims such as “Singal has been described as one of the most prominent journalists working in the area of transgender issues” were made with no more than a questionably reliable primary source. If he is prominent, how is it he has not been published by a media company on the subject in years? It makes me worry we might be blowing what is essentially blogging and a publishing career that ended years ago out of proportion without any sources to support that.Freepsbane (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I question if this article isn’t falling into the same vanity trap the previously deleted article did. Again citing a narrow pool of primary articles by subjects connected to the author for good or ill, the author is questionably notable. Arguably less than last time as he was an editor during the last deletion and is now self published. The book certainly doesn’t meet notability, it can’t be found in any best seller lists, it seems to be selling tepidly at best, and has mixed reviews. It makes me worry we are accidentally doing commercial promotion, by giving attention to non notable subjects and their commercial endeavors.Freepsbane (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the definition of "primary source" conventionally used on Wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARY. You're welcome to nominate the article for deletion if you don't think it meets WP:N, but I think you have some misapprehensions about that policy. It's not possible for a subject to become less notable with the passage of time. Notability is based on secondary RS coverage, and that is not a quantity that can decrease. See also WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Colin M (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

True that I let science definitions get in the way since I have to deal with that in life but those are not secondary. His self proclaimed friends writing about him is primary. As is self proclaimed people who dislike him like those two sources you cited to claim he was a world leading journalist. Again primary and part of the story at that, get CJR or something who’s job it is to record what’s happening and then another story. And yes, per wp:1E it is extremely possible to go from being marginally notable to non notable. If he as your article attests is known only for one fracas, and he no longer enjoys the publishing significance he had last deletion when he was an editor, and his book is obscure, then yes, per wp:1E he should not be getting an unneeded page. Or at the very least it should be reworked so that we do not make advertisement pages for an obscure book. Freepsbane (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• FYI Colin M, Freepsbane has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Their edits here that remain probably deserve more scrutiny. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. I definitely see some issues with some of the changes that have been introduced to the article (including the attribution issue I raised above), but it may be a day or two before I have time to work on them. Colin M (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

noteworthiness of 2021 NYT book review

@Basketcase2022: I see you added a new section, "New York Times book review of Trans by Helen Joyce". But I feel it might not satisfy WP:DUE. Singal has written lots of contributions to major publications, including NYT, and I don't think we should necessarily try to summarize all of them in this article. We do go into a lot of detail on the 2018 Atlantic story, but that's because it received a lot of attention from secondary sources. Right now, the Trans review only has a single primary source (the review itself). Unless the review has itself been discussed elsewhere, I'm inclined to remove this section. (It seems more relevant to the book, and I see there is already a very similar paragraph in the book's article.) But let me know if you disagree. Colin M (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeahhh, an entire section with only a (single) primary source (the review in question by the article subject), is an issue; we'd need secondary sources to establish what WP:WEIGHT, if any, the review has. Poking around, the only secondary coverage I spotted—perhaps someone else can find more?—was a Gawker article, "Bigot Reviews Bigot for NYT Book Review", but WP:RSP says "when Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person". -sche (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources advises: In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group. The current incarnation has not been discussed at RSN. Given that ambiguity, we could possibly cite Claire Carusillo's Gawker piece, but only with ad hoc consensus at this talk page. Since it has been just two days since The New York Times published Singal's latest review, I request everyone's indulgence to leave the current subsection in place for at least a week to await additional secondary sources and to allow other editors to comment on this thread. I appreciate your patience. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Gawker is clearly still the low-quality opinionated blog it always was, and no self-respecting encyclopedia would cite it. Book reviews generally don't get commentary in RS, so though we can wait a bit, likely it's not going to happen. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not especially noteworthy. Unless other outlets have significantly mentioned Signal's NYT review, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion in this article, let alone its own subheading and full paragraph. Signal has many articles for many outlets (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]): his biography in this encyclopedia should not cherry-pick or promote any, nor infer significance of any article via juxtaposition with other subjects. It may be fine for Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality to include Singal's review, but this does not mandate Signal's article reciprocates, just as we need not shoehorn his reviews of Ennuigi or Lost at Sea: The Jon Ronson Mysteries. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

bias of The Advocate

As of the current version of this article, The Advocate (LGBT magazine) is used as a source not once but twice. As it is explicitly, foremostly an LGBT magazine and both topics it's cited for concern transgender issues, is this not in violation of WP:BIASED? Hoyadonis (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that both articles are opinion pieces ("Voices" section, with URL classified as commentary), and given one is cited 4 times, issues of WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE come into play: one commentary is by Mey Rude, a staff writer for the Advocate, another is by Amanda Kerri, "a writer and comedian". Are these views especially prominent? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that LGBT rights are "biased?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terfslayer (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they’re just saying that, like every living human beings, members of the lgbt “Community” are just as capable of bias as anyone else. I’d you think they’re not? 2601:18F:A82:6E50:8893:FB3F:EB23:8F9D (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you exclude all Canadian sources for a section of an article relating to Canada? YarrowFlower (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

“ His reporting on detransition and transition regret has been negatively received by many transgender people and family members.”

1. Literally what does this mean

2. We need a source stating that his writing on detransition has been negatively received by many transgender people and family members (or whatever meaningful prose one would like to replace that with). Compiling a bunch of negative reception evaluated to be from transgender people and family members is either OR or SYNTH. Zanahary (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Dan Savage

I don't understand the singular inclusion of Dan Savage's commentary in the subsection "Subsequent events". For the time being, I have removed mention of Dan Savage's commentary in the interests of WP:NPOV. The inclusion of Savage's commentary and only Savage's commentary reads too much as a refutation by Wikipedia's editorial point of view of GLAAD's criticism.

I think a completely acceptable alternative would be to restore Dan Savage's commentary along with the commentary of at least one other notable public figure, ideally one with some relevance to the topic, such as a journalist, scientist, or activist who has written about trans issues. YarrowFlower (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add additional commentary if you think it relevant and due. I don’t understand removing Savage’s. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

If someone wanted to write a paragraph pulling in different relevant commentaries, with appropriate weight and balance to give the reader a representative impression of the response, that would totally make sense. (At least, I think so. I guess someone could argue it would make the section too cluttered or sprawling.) Dan Savage isn't a particularly relevant commentator in this context, so his sole inclusion in this section feels random.

Savage himself has been the subject of intense public criticism over statements that critics perceive to be anti-trans and public accusations of transphobia. On more than one occasion, his speaking engagements have been protested for this reason. To give readers this context would require a diversion into this topic which probably doesn't belong in this article. To not give readers this context, I feel, is kind of a disservice to the reader and potentially a little misleading.

This concern would be mitigated if a representative collection of responses were included in the article, rather than treating Savage, for some reason, as the sole commentator worthy of inclusion, without noting his own controversies regarding trans people. (I did previously attempt to add some context to this article about Savage's controversies, but my additions were reverted by another editor.) YarrowFlower (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

To give readers this “context” would be blatant synthesis. If no source deems it to be relevant enough to raise in context of his response to Singal, Wikipedia cannot decide to do it anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There is only one source cited by this article that discusses Savage’s commentary. It’s an opinion article from The Advocate. It briefly mentions Savage, dismisses his opinion as irrelevant, and spends the large majority of its word count criticizing Singal.

The inclusion of Savage’s commentary in this Wikipedia article would seem to imply that it’s relevant, in contradiction to the opinion article it’s citing.

The other source, an article from The Hill, embeds three tweets related to the Singal/GLAAD controversy in the article, but doesn’t mention Dan Savage or his commentary anywhere in the actual text of the article. YarrowFlower (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention, the opinion article in The Advocate also accuses Dan Savage of transphobia. YarrowFlower (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I wasn’t commenting on the dueness of Savage’s comments, just pointing out that you can’t originally introduce context that the source doesn’t. But an opinion piece raising and dismissing another writer’s response is not strong sourcing anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that The Advocate source was listed with the removed text, but didn't seem to be actually used in any way. I think leaving Savage's comments out would be the simpler and better way to handle it. However, I'm not opposed to adding them back as part of a more complete context of "responses". The opinion piece from Mey Rude seems like an obvious candidate for adding another person's view without synthesis concerns, given that The Hill source links directly to it. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Zanahary and @OdinintheNorth for your contributions. I understand your point about not introducing original research/synthesis that isn't present in the cited sources, Zanahary. I think we're all in agreement on this topic now. YarrowFlower (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"Singal has been described as one of the most prominent journalists working in the area of transgender issues"

I think it's very sketchy to have this phrase in writing here, when only checking the first source (the advocate) has him being referred to as "alleged transphobe" in the first paragraph.

if you don't want to call a spade a spade and call him a bigot, then at least add something like "a polarizing figure" or "somewhat contested views". 195.145.106.170 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is very misleading regarding his prominence. He should at least be referred to as a polarizing figure or controversial or something to that effect. I had never even heard of him until yesterday so he can't be that prominent. Happybana (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree—describing him solely as "prominent" is farcical at best. Propose the following:

"Singal primarily writes about transgender issues, and has been regularly criticized as transphobic. Fiendpie (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding Template:Reflist-talk below for clarity's sake and edited Fiendpie's comment to put in the actual refs from the article rather than just the <ref name="advocate-accountability"/> tags — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That feels like a much more neutral description. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That you haven’t heard of him before doesn’t matter. I’ve restored a piece of text that was improperly removed, which reveals the allegations of bias. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We cannot call someone polarizing etc. without very strong sourcing that says so—see WP:BLP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's ok, the refs we already have can already justify "criticized as transphobic" — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though not "has been regularly..." ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, @OwenBlacker, could you raise some specific quotes to support that he's been described as transphobic? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you mean quotes from the refs mentioned in this section, the first one opens by describing Singal as a "former New York magazine journalist and alleged transphobe", and later states "To have a platform like his and be trusted on trans issues and then to wave a flag distracting from real trans issues and discredit any trans person who disagrees with you, is transphobic behavior." Taking a quick look at another sources already in the article [8]: "The story was fact checked, but according to many readers, journalists, and activists in the trans community, was transphobic—and all wrong." (Links in this quote are included in the original source and give context for the statement). – OdinintheNorth (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Calling a story transphobic is not the same thing as calling its author transphobic, but the references that do say he has been called transphobic are opinion pieces. These aren’t good enough for a contentious claim in a BLP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of the strength of sources, I took a closer look at the other references for the existing sentence in the article. The two cited for the first part are an opinion piece and a Jezebel article. Per WP:JEZEBEL, the statement should be attributed to them if it is left unchanged (as the statement in the article is almost directly lifted from that source). Personally, it seems better to either reword the line (relying on the already listed sources) to something like:

"Singal is known for writing about transgender issues; his 2018 cover story in The Atlantic has been criticized by many as transphobic."

or to simply remove the line entirely. I can see the case for trying to summarize the section, but it's also not necessary for a relatively short section. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing. A majority of sources that cover the story’s reception don’t say that the story was criticized as transphobic; they use other language. A summary is not really needed, yeah. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with removing that line, and will keep this talk page in my watchlist in case anyone from earlier in this discussion chimes in with additional information or a different opinion. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional ref from the article [9]: "I don’t have the space nor the inclination to referee the balance and accuracy of their respective articles — Herzog’s in 2017 for the Seattle alt-weekly The Stranger and Singal’s in 2018 for the Atlantic — but both writers were quickly and roundly denounced as transphobic." – OdinintheNorth (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Why is EVERY quote in the article critical of Singal?

This seems like a very WP:UNDUE representation of the subject of the article. Red Slash 23:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

That's just not true, I'm looking at multiple quotes in the article that aren't critical of Singal. And looking just at the balance of quotes in an article can't tell you if there's a WP:UNDUE issue. You would need to show that the article is failing to represent a "significant viewpoint" on Singal published by reliable sources. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Jezebel “What’s Jesse Singal’s Fucking Deal?” piece

Per WP:JEZEBEL: Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons. Leave that piece off this BLP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Are we using Jezebel for a contentious claim though? We're not citing them to say Singal is anti-trans, we're citing them to say that Jezebel said Singal is anti-trans Snokalok (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Attributing it in-text does not mean we are not "using" Jezebel for the contentious claim. If the consensus was just that it should always be attributed in-text, it would say that. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

1) WP:JEZEBEL: There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated, and that its claims should be attributed. Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons.

2) We do not use Jezebel to make any claim in wikivoice or statements of fact, we attribute an analysis

3) This recieved secondary coverage, which is cited, specifically the Notre Dame Law Review

• It was also cited by the Slate piece mentioned in this article[10]

This objection would only hold if 1) We use it for wikivoice (which we don't) or 2) had no secondary coverage (which we do)

Please self-revert Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

No. Repeating an opinion—even with attribution—that Singal masks his anti-trans sentiment with fake concern for transgender children, when it originates from a source that consensus says should not be used for contentious claims about living persons, is in my view a clear violation of that consensus and BLP. I'm not self-reverting; you don't have consensus to restore, and per WP:BLPRESTORE you must establish consensus to do so before the material is restored. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Why is Inazu (2019) used to elevate critics, while his own context and commentary is ignored? e.g. "Singal's story was met with widespread outrage from progressive commentators," and "Some of these commentators also pushed back on Singal's methods, but their ad hominem attacks far outpaced their substantive critiques". If we want to pretend that scholarly views outweigh plebian journalists and op-eds per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we ought to lend more weight to a Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Good point. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Wow, really good point—this is a very intense selective citation. @Animalparty, can you try integrating prose that actually represents that source? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Material removed as undue

Some transgender advocates questioned whether it was appropriate for a cisgender man like Singal, rather than a transgender writer, to write on the topic. James Kirkup of the Social Market Foundation criticized this response as "trying to ensure that only one group gets to speak". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, why did you remove this as undue? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece. WP:RSOPINION applies. There is no secondary coverage and no reason why the opinion of a random employee at a market-focused think tank is remotely due. It is definitely not nearly as reliable a source as needed to state something so contentious as the first sentence in wikivoice. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I see. Do you find Robyn Kanner’s opinion piece due? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that it was a piece the Atlantic commissioned in response to their original story and not marked opinion[11], yes. It's much more due and is properly attributed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether it is specifically marked opinion obviously does not matter; this essay that’s mostly personal narrative and ends No one can ever know which direction is best. That’s part of living. is clearly an opinion piece. Surely you don’t argue it’s a work of reporting? There’s also no evidence that I’m aware of that it was commissioned—it’s just a response, and it could have been pitched. I don’t know that that matters (maybe you mean that being part of a series of responses by the original publisher is enough), but both of your arguments, as argued, fail. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There were also four pieces in that series. This wiki article points two out. Between Evan Urquhart and Robyn Kanner, it’s obvious which one’s response would be more notable and should be included. The former is a pretty prominent writer on transgender topics, and the latter has a handful of op-ed bylines across various topics besides her main career as a creative director.

Would you oppose replacing Kanner’s piece with Urquhart’s? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done so myself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Zucker

First you revert claiming (Given source absolutely does not support the text. Source does not say Zucker advocated conversion therapy[12]

When I note The source says 'his defense of Kenneth Zucker, a disgraced advocate of anti-trans “reparative” therapy, as the victim of an activist-driven, unscientific crusade against his “politically incorrect” practices' 1) "reparative" therapy is a term for conversion therapy 2) There is wide agreement in RS he practiced it)[13] in my revert

You then argued that Neither source supports a straightforward description of conversion therapy, particularly the Cut source that only describes criticisms as such and never validates the designation in its own voice., changing the text to who'd advocated "reparative therapy" (characterized by critics as a form of conversion therapy) for transgender patients

• I feel I have to bring up WP:CIR here. Reparative therapy is agreed by absolutely everybody to be conversion therapy. The name "Conversion therapy" supplanted the term "Reparative therapy".
• Zucker denies advocating reparative therapy / conversion therapy.
• It is widely supported in the literature that Kenneth Zucker advocates conversion therapy
• The Cut is the piece that Singal defended Zucker in. Remove the link if you so wish, the content is cited to the first

Put simply - the source does say he advocated conversion therapy (and RS overwhelmingly agree with that assessment). And we have a source noting Singal wrote an article defending him. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, this is obviously due here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

My first revert was of material cited only to the Cut piece in question, which indeed didn’t support the text. I think you may not realize this, but look at the diff and you’ll see.

If Zucker denies it, and Singal agrees, then it’s not complete to say he defended someone who’d advocated conversion therapy, because that implies that he defended said advocacy, when in fact Singal argues that he did not advocate reparative/conversion therapy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I am looking, you reverted the material entirely and the first citation there was the Slate piece.[14]

because that implies that he defended said advocacy, when in fact Singal argues that he did not advocate reparative/conversion therapy - yes, that's the issue. RS widely agree Zucker advocated CT, though Zucker argues it isn't. Singal wrote a piece arguing it wasn't CT. We have an RS noting Zucker advocated CT and Singal defended him. He did defend said advocacy, by arguing it wasn't CT. Simple as. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry—I missed the first earlier-defined ref anchor because I was looking at the text editor.

The fact that Singal argued Zucker hadn’t advocated for conversion therapy is a significant distinction from straightforwardly defending advocacy for conversion therapy which I feel ought to be revealed in the article’s prose. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether Kenneth Zucker practiced CT has been litigated ad nauseam on the Zucker talk page, with the conclusion being that sourcing supports calling Zucker a conversion therapist. I don't think that needs to be relitigated. HenrikHolen (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether he did isn’t the matter at hand—that’s whether it is accurate to simply describe Jesse as defending an advocate of conversion therapy, rather than to clarify that Jesse contests that Zucker is an advocate of conversion therapy. Right now the article gives an impression that is not accurate. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)