![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The creator of this article is User:Ylevental. A clear COI issue. I would nominate this for deletion on notability grounds but I can't as an IP. 1.152.96.233 ( talk) 08:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I now have an account and I have retagged this page and warned Ylevental about his COI. Any future edits from him should be reversed on sight - unless there is another procedure that needs to be followed. KrazyKlimber ( talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ylevental, do you have any relationship with Jonathan Mitchell to declare, per WP:DCOI? CatPath ( talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there an instance of him saying that he 'hates autism'? That seems very NPOV to me, but I don't know if that's what he actually said or not. -- Tarage ( talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This article mentions controversy, but is lacking in the other side as it relates directly or indirectly to the subject. This missing information may be why the application for Featured Article failed. If there is controversy then there has to be sources demonstrating this in order to neutralise this article and present the complete picture of the subject. Also on my last edit I removed a blog, and I query the presence in the article of another blog which I didn't remove because it was the sole source of an entire paragraph (Manuel Casanova's). Unless there's another source I think that entire paragraph should be removed. Thoughts are appreciated. 101.182.100.189 ( talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NinjaRobotPirate: Good work on the clean up - the Neurotribes review had to go as it didn't have a source (and if it did have one the other reviews of the book needed to be referenced for neutrality), but the work claim needs a third party verification to confirm that was actually the reason. I've also added a few more tags - the "Who?" tag is very important in the neutrality issue. 203.17.215.26 ( talk) 01:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: There are still some neutrality issues surrounding the points of fact I have tagged. We need to discuss this is order to gain the balance we need and then perhaps this could be a candidate for a good article. 203.17.215.22 ( talk) 02:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, as I am about to depart the library it would be best to shut this off, so I've opted for neutralising the comments instead of demanding sources for the claims. I have as a result removed the neutrality tag. However as an admitted COI subject (Ylevental) has been substantively editing this article recently (as in within the last month or so) the COI tag should stay. If it shouldn't I would like to know why this would be the case. 203.17.215.22 ( talk) 03:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've requested semi-page protection. Jytdog ( talk) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I checked Google Books for the book American Normal : The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, and I am unable to find the quotes attributed to Jonathan Mitchell despite a search. His name was mentioned, but certainly there was nothing there about Temple Grandin nor the Osbourne quote attributed. A thorough verification is recommended, or I suggest the quotes be removed as at worst lies and at best misunderstandings. 203.15.226.132 ( talk) 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This subject arguably does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability for biography.
Wikipedia standards for notability for people state that the individual must have received coverage in multiple published secondary sources.
Sources cited for this article include:
Material uploaded on the subject's own blog; Newsweek article in which the subject was only one of many individuals discussed; 2008 public radio story conducted by a radio producer who is acquainted with the subject; NPR article on the subject's decision to donate his brain tissue to science on death (i.e. it was not specifically about the subject's life and achievements); a book written by the subject's sister Melanie Mitchell; a brief mention in a book about a more general subject; NY Magazine article in which the subject is one of many individuals quoted; LA Times article written by the subject; Spectator article written by the subject; BLog article written by the subject; Blog article that briefly cites the subject's opinions; A brief mention on a single page of a longer book; An article written by the subject in Autism Parenting Magazine; Blog opinion piece in the Huffington Post; A letter to the editor that happens to mention the subject; Ppodcast in which the subject is one of many individuals discussed; Article from the subject's blog
Out of 16 sources, 6 are written by the subject and one is from the subject's sister. Most other mentions are either opinion pieces, or the subject is merely one individual of many discussed in an article about a more general subject (i.e. different views about an autism cure, brain tissue donation). This does not suggest that the subject has received substantial attention in secondary sources. Wiki standards specifically state that trivial coverage of sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
The subject also does not meet the notability standards for creative professionals (writers). Their work has not been cited frequently, won significant critical attention, etc. Although some have argued that they are notable as a critic of neurodiversity, that is not reflected in objective measures such as citations or secondary source coverage. HistorianSRPK ( talk) 00:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK
Yes, I think that the poor quality of sources is a strong indicator that the subject does not mean notability requirements. If there are better sources available, proponents of this article's validity should present them. HistorianSRPK ( talk) 07:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK
I would note that Ylevental has a stated connection to the subject. His continued influence on this page is itself a cause for concern that violates Wiki guidelines.
Beyond that issue, it is true that the subject has received attention in some notable sources, although I do not think that one of the authors being a medical doctor is relevant. The fact remains that the overall quality of the sources cited remains quite poor, indicative of padding the sources in order to make the subject appear more important. The overall effect of such sources appears to suggest that Ylevental and the subject are using Wikipedia as a tool to promote their perspective. From "What Wikipedia is not": "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."
This page fits many of the patterns of a single editor using Wikipedia as a soapbox. If the subject is notable, then this editor has done a poor job establishing this in an unbiased fashion. At the very least, this suggests to me that the article needs to be rewritten to focus on reputable sources only, without padding from the author's blog, opinion pieces, and other trivial mentions. HistorianSRPK ( talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK
Hello,
So I am sure that this page is being watched by some editors. Based on all the changes made yesterday, here are the ones I request:
For the infobox:
Ylevental ( talk) 19:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like no one is objecting to these requests, is that correct:
-- valereee ( talk) 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Two agree-upon edits done. Please start a new section for future requests. -- valereee ( talk) 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Key Principle to Keep in Mind:
The entire article must be edited to fulfill the following guideline: Article must focus only on specific issues for which Jonathan Mitchell is known, and must not present his views on all related issues. No WP:COI bias.
Overall, I would like the {{advert|date=March 2019}} and {{COI|date=March 2019}} tag to be removed.
More requested edits:
I am not sure how to properly cite <ref name="Osborne">{{cite book |last1=Osborne |first1=Lawrence |title=American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome |date=2007 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=9780387218076 |pages=114–115, 155, 158–159 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5bPdBgAAQBAJ |accessdate=19 February 2019 |language=en}}</ref>
I notice there is <ref name="Osborne" />{{rp|154}} and <ref name="Osborne" />{{rp|154-155}} in the source code. However, the "Osborne" source under "References" has the pages listed as pages=114–115, 155, 158–159. Will you include all the pages in the source, or cite them individually as reference pages?
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-0: p. 154
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-1: p. 157-158
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-2: p. 155
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-3: p. 161
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-4: p. 154-155
Ylevental ( talk) 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. No actionable request. |
Information to be removed: Edits done on the article
Explanation of the issue: I have made edits to the page. I have removed content that read like an advertisement in the whole article and also in the section on crticism. Further, I have removed incorrect citations like self-published blogs, dead links and inappropriate external links. I have also re-arranged the text and re-named the sections to rightly speak about the content. I am open to make further edits to the page to remove obscure content, if suggested.
I would request you to please remove the advert tag on the page. Thanks.
TP495 ( talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Regards, Spintendo 20:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a few more edits:
The sentence "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff talks about his life experience with Asperger syndrome, an autism-spectrum disorder." should be changed to "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff is about a 49-year-old autistic man who undergoes transcranial magnetic stimulation in an attempt to treat his autism."
The sentence "Since 2010, Mitchell has also been a part of mirror neurons discussion with UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni." should be changed to "Since 2010, Mitchell has been asking UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni questions about mirror neurons by email."
The sentence segment "The School of Hard Knocks [1] and twenty-five short stories" should be changed to "The School of Hard Knocks, [1] and has also written twenty-five short stories" Ylevental ( talk) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
References
According to Jonathan Mitchell he is not a published author; https://corticalchauvinism.com/2016/10/03/jonathan-mitchell-autisms-gadfly/
There is no Google link to School of Hard Knocks ever being released or available for purchase. Even the Citations for School of Hard Knocks, the NPR interview, states Jonathan Mitchell was writing, not had written School of Hard Knocks.
Mu Rhythm Bluff is a self published title.
Mattevansc3 ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One self published book does not warrant a dedicated section.
Today, a book titled Autism Updated by Dr. Manuel Casanova was released, that contains a profile of Jonathan Mitchell from pages 697-700. Here are the details:
I added the book reference to the article myself. Ylevental ( talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The creator of this article is User:Ylevental. A clear COI issue. I would nominate this for deletion on notability grounds but I can't as an IP. 1.152.96.233 ( talk) 08:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I now have an account and I have retagged this page and warned Ylevental about his COI. Any future edits from him should be reversed on sight - unless there is another procedure that needs to be followed. KrazyKlimber ( talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ylevental, do you have any relationship with Jonathan Mitchell to declare, per WP:DCOI? CatPath ( talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there an instance of him saying that he 'hates autism'? That seems very NPOV to me, but I don't know if that's what he actually said or not. -- Tarage ( talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This article mentions controversy, but is lacking in the other side as it relates directly or indirectly to the subject. This missing information may be why the application for Featured Article failed. If there is controversy then there has to be sources demonstrating this in order to neutralise this article and present the complete picture of the subject. Also on my last edit I removed a blog, and I query the presence in the article of another blog which I didn't remove because it was the sole source of an entire paragraph (Manuel Casanova's). Unless there's another source I think that entire paragraph should be removed. Thoughts are appreciated. 101.182.100.189 ( talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NinjaRobotPirate: Good work on the clean up - the Neurotribes review had to go as it didn't have a source (and if it did have one the other reviews of the book needed to be referenced for neutrality), but the work claim needs a third party verification to confirm that was actually the reason. I've also added a few more tags - the "Who?" tag is very important in the neutrality issue. 203.17.215.26 ( talk) 01:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: There are still some neutrality issues surrounding the points of fact I have tagged. We need to discuss this is order to gain the balance we need and then perhaps this could be a candidate for a good article. 203.17.215.22 ( talk) 02:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, as I am about to depart the library it would be best to shut this off, so I've opted for neutralising the comments instead of demanding sources for the claims. I have as a result removed the neutrality tag. However as an admitted COI subject (Ylevental) has been substantively editing this article recently (as in within the last month or so) the COI tag should stay. If it shouldn't I would like to know why this would be the case. 203.17.215.22 ( talk) 03:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've requested semi-page protection. Jytdog ( talk) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I checked Google Books for the book American Normal : The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, and I am unable to find the quotes attributed to Jonathan Mitchell despite a search. His name was mentioned, but certainly there was nothing there about Temple Grandin nor the Osbourne quote attributed. A thorough verification is recommended, or I suggest the quotes be removed as at worst lies and at best misunderstandings. 203.15.226.132 ( talk) 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This subject arguably does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability for biography.
Wikipedia standards for notability for people state that the individual must have received coverage in multiple published secondary sources.
Sources cited for this article include:
Material uploaded on the subject's own blog; Newsweek article in which the subject was only one of many individuals discussed; 2008 public radio story conducted by a radio producer who is acquainted with the subject; NPR article on the subject's decision to donate his brain tissue to science on death (i.e. it was not specifically about the subject's life and achievements); a book written by the subject's sister Melanie Mitchell; a brief mention in a book about a more general subject; NY Magazine article in which the subject is one of many individuals quoted; LA Times article written by the subject; Spectator article written by the subject; BLog article written by the subject; Blog article that briefly cites the subject's opinions; A brief mention on a single page of a longer book; An article written by the subject in Autism Parenting Magazine; Blog opinion piece in the Huffington Post; A letter to the editor that happens to mention the subject; Ppodcast in which the subject is one of many individuals discussed; Article from the subject's blog
Out of 16 sources, 6 are written by the subject and one is from the subject's sister. Most other mentions are either opinion pieces, or the subject is merely one individual of many discussed in an article about a more general subject (i.e. different views about an autism cure, brain tissue donation). This does not suggest that the subject has received substantial attention in secondary sources. Wiki standards specifically state that trivial coverage of sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
The subject also does not meet the notability standards for creative professionals (writers). Their work has not been cited frequently, won significant critical attention, etc. Although some have argued that they are notable as a critic of neurodiversity, that is not reflected in objective measures such as citations or secondary source coverage. HistorianSRPK ( talk) 00:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK
Yes, I think that the poor quality of sources is a strong indicator that the subject does not mean notability requirements. If there are better sources available, proponents of this article's validity should present them. HistorianSRPK ( talk) 07:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK
I would note that Ylevental has a stated connection to the subject. His continued influence on this page is itself a cause for concern that violates Wiki guidelines.
Beyond that issue, it is true that the subject has received attention in some notable sources, although I do not think that one of the authors being a medical doctor is relevant. The fact remains that the overall quality of the sources cited remains quite poor, indicative of padding the sources in order to make the subject appear more important. The overall effect of such sources appears to suggest that Ylevental and the subject are using Wikipedia as a tool to promote their perspective. From "What Wikipedia is not": "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."
This page fits many of the patterns of a single editor using Wikipedia as a soapbox. If the subject is notable, then this editor has done a poor job establishing this in an unbiased fashion. At the very least, this suggests to me that the article needs to be rewritten to focus on reputable sources only, without padding from the author's blog, opinion pieces, and other trivial mentions. HistorianSRPK ( talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK
Hello,
So I am sure that this page is being watched by some editors. Based on all the changes made yesterday, here are the ones I request:
For the infobox:
Ylevental ( talk) 19:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like no one is objecting to these requests, is that correct:
-- valereee ( talk) 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Two agree-upon edits done. Please start a new section for future requests. -- valereee ( talk) 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Key Principle to Keep in Mind:
The entire article must be edited to fulfill the following guideline: Article must focus only on specific issues for which Jonathan Mitchell is known, and must not present his views on all related issues. No WP:COI bias.
Overall, I would like the {{advert|date=March 2019}} and {{COI|date=March 2019}} tag to be removed.
More requested edits:
I am not sure how to properly cite <ref name="Osborne">{{cite book |last1=Osborne |first1=Lawrence |title=American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome |date=2007 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=9780387218076 |pages=114–115, 155, 158–159 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5bPdBgAAQBAJ |accessdate=19 February 2019 |language=en}}</ref>
I notice there is <ref name="Osborne" />{{rp|154}} and <ref name="Osborne" />{{rp|154-155}} in the source code. However, the "Osborne" source under "References" has the pages listed as pages=114–115, 155, 158–159. Will you include all the pages in the source, or cite them individually as reference pages?
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-0: p. 154
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-1: p. 157-158
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-2: p. 155
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-3: p. 161
Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-4: p. 154-155
Ylevental ( talk) 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. No actionable request. |
Information to be removed: Edits done on the article
Explanation of the issue: I have made edits to the page. I have removed content that read like an advertisement in the whole article and also in the section on crticism. Further, I have removed incorrect citations like self-published blogs, dead links and inappropriate external links. I have also re-arranged the text and re-named the sections to rightly speak about the content. I am open to make further edits to the page to remove obscure content, if suggested.
I would request you to please remove the advert tag on the page. Thanks.
TP495 ( talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Regards, Spintendo 20:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a few more edits:
The sentence "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff talks about his life experience with Asperger syndrome, an autism-spectrum disorder." should be changed to "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff is about a 49-year-old autistic man who undergoes transcranial magnetic stimulation in an attempt to treat his autism."
The sentence "Since 2010, Mitchell has also been a part of mirror neurons discussion with UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni." should be changed to "Since 2010, Mitchell has been asking UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni questions about mirror neurons by email."
The sentence segment "The School of Hard Knocks [1] and twenty-five short stories" should be changed to "The School of Hard Knocks, [1] and has also written twenty-five short stories" Ylevental ( talk) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
References
According to Jonathan Mitchell he is not a published author; https://corticalchauvinism.com/2016/10/03/jonathan-mitchell-autisms-gadfly/
There is no Google link to School of Hard Knocks ever being released or available for purchase. Even the Citations for School of Hard Knocks, the NPR interview, states Jonathan Mitchell was writing, not had written School of Hard Knocks.
Mu Rhythm Bluff is a self published title.
Mattevansc3 ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One self published book does not warrant a dedicated section.
Today, a book titled Autism Updated by Dr. Manuel Casanova was released, that contains a profile of Jonathan Mitchell from pages 697-700. Here are the details:
I added the book reference to the article myself. Ylevental ( talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)