Talk:Keith Ablow

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media Matters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  American Psychiatric Association Membership 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keith Ablow. 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/20090918005219/http://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts_entertainment/articles/got_problems_cant_fix_them_its_mom_and_dads_fault/ to http://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts_entertainment/articles/got_problems_cant_fix_them_its_mom_and_dads_fault
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Blatent bias, personal opinion/judgement, violate BLP policy?  

message: 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)
thread_title: Controversy section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PR versions by COI accounts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why are my changes being undone? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My bad 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reaching Consensus