Misplaced Pages

:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:29, 20 July 2012 editEarl King Jr. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,881 edits →The Zeitgeist Movement discussion: comments← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:47, 9 January 2025 edit undoRIT RAJARSHI (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,682 edits →Back-and-forth discussion (Autism): ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Informal venue for resolving content disputes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 38 |counter = 252
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(24h) |algo = old(72h)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{clear|left}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=720
|index=no
|minarchthreads=1
|minkeepthreads=1
|archivenow=<!--ARCHIVENOW-->
|nogenerateindex=1
|maxarchsize=200000
|numberstart=27
}}<!-- To change the grace period before open threads can be archived, you need to edit ]. -->
]
]
]
]{{noindex}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- When removing this, please put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archiving to explain why. -->


{{purge box}}
== Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands ==


__TOC__
<!-- ] 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
{{clear}}


=Current disputes=
* {{pagelinks|Macclesfield Bank}}
* {{pagelinks|South China Sea Islands}}


== Autism ==
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


{{DR case status|open}}
The ] is notable for being a disputed territory. The dispute in the article seemingly started when I references in a particular statement about the claimant countries in order to make the content in the article verifiable (because there weren't any citations there before that edit). In the succeeding edits, Namayan removed the referenced Philippines claim as he is not convinced that such claim exists. He argues that a primary source is needed and that according to his research on documents from the UN website, ''''.
<!-- ] 15:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737128771}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->

{{drn filing editor|Oolong|15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The following are current sources used for the Philippine claim:
*
*
*
*


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
The dispute is centered on the issue on whether the above mentioned independent sources were inaccurate or not in publishing such information.


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
These sources, being recognized news agencies or in the US State Dept source's case, an official body of another sovereign state, are highly unlikely, in my belief, to post information of such magnitude if these weren't well researched or are downright false. I believe looking over at documents at the UN website and drawing conclusions from it without authoritative supporting sources constitute ], more so by assuming that the information posted by the US State Dept, et al are not accurate nor true until proven otherwise.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Autism}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Oolong}}
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''
* {{User|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}
* {{User|Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan}}
* {{User|HarmonyA8}}
* {{User|TempusTacet}}
* {{User|WhatamIdoing}}
* {{User|FactOrOpinion}}
* {{User|2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0}}
* {{User|GreenMeansGo}}
* {{User|Markworthen}}
* {{User|Urselius}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.
:* {{user|Namayan}}
:* {{user|Xeltran}}
:
I believe Namayan erred in making presumptions that just because he didn't find any mention of the territory in what he believes is the best source for the subject (the UN website, among others), means that such claim by the Philippines is non-existent. At least 3 of the references above have been published recently. His assertions that the ''Philippines as the country does not claim the territory, citations are contrary to Philippine territorial laws and submissions to the United Nations'' is ] as it is not supported by any other source that disputes the accuracy of the information published from the 4 sources. He has also yet to disprove that the sources posted false or inaccurate information, their credibility were questionable, or the information is contrary at all to what the official Philippine government position is. He is insisting that the information posted from all the references are inaccurate because he did not find any mention of the territory in any of the laws/treatises/etc. he researched on. The ] article is also being listed since Namayan has already been reverting edits there under the same assertion. If the claim of the Philippines is non-existent at all, the Phil. government would have already issued a notice to all these agencies that they posted wrong information or the US State Dept, et al would have already withdrawn such information through an erratum. Any of the two scenarios did not happen. For an issue of such magnitude, I find it unlikely that the Phil. government is not aware of the content of such references (1 is a paper from the US, 2 are nationally recognized newspapers, and 1 is a news publication from another country).


On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do ''within'' medicine, or ''outside'' of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about ''whether'' something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.
Yes


This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
I started a topic at ] in order to clarify my addition of my sources and to have his actions clarified. A long discussion has ensued. Seeing no consensus on the issue, I suggested that the matter be elevated to the ] where yet another long discussion followed. I my references to the M. Bank article with a {{tl|better source}} tag in order to reach an impasse with the understanding that my edit will be construed that such claim by the Philippines is backed up with ] and ] sources but better sources are being desired. Namayan still removed the Philippines as a claimant country even when references were clearly supplied with his understanding that ''such information is not supported by official government documents''.


]
* ''How do you think we can help?''
]
]
]
]]
Related: ]


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
Third opinion from other parties is earnestly needed in order to identify whether the given sources pass the standards of ] and ]. If the sources qualify as such, the claim can be included in the article. Third opinion is also desired in determining the validity of the information of the articles. Four different sources were already cited in order to support that such a claim by the Philippines exists. I believe that: to regard their content as inaccurate, or their credibility questionable in the absence of or non-access to a primary source; and to interpret the primary sources (UN documents, laws, treatises, etc.) available without evidence of being an expert or being an authority of the subject constitute ]. Thus, third opinion is also being sought in order to determine whether such is true.


There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the ''route'' to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.
] (]) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов ====
===Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.
Being an editor of Misplaced Pages for over 6 years, who has also done extensive gathering of references for Philippine content to be provided in Misplaced Pages, I am very well aware of the requirements needed for an article.


This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders).
This disputed information stemmed from the citing of news articles and a U.S. State Department publication in absence of an any official information from the Philippine government, which is the most reliable source on territorial claims of the country. On the other hand, I have cited and listed laws that define Philippine territory, which are likewise deposited with the United Nations , yet it is not being recognized by the other editor, saying that as a non-expert on the issue, I should not be interpreting these laws. These laws are explicit in determining the extent of Philippine territory and identifies the extreme points (land features) of the nations borders/baselines being an archipelago. It has also identified areas outside of the defined baseline as ''regime of islands'' in compliance with UNCLOS, in this case Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the ]) and ]. It is illustrated by this .
This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see ].


Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.
The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this "purported" territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Unfortunately, the other editor has not presented any though. The other editor also insists that I provide information, that refutes the articles that he/she has presented. Why would a government bother to publish something it doesn't have a stake on?


In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.
It should not take an "expert" on the matter (a cartographer) to pin point the geographic features on a map, if one will just look at the one can already see, that Macclesfield (close to Paracel Islands, off Hainan, China) is not being identified as a territory claimed by the Philippines, as in the map I have cited above.


While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.
During the deliberations in Congress of the Philippine Baseline Law (in time to meet the U.N. deadline as per UNCLOS), there were various discussions that were published in reference to this, let me cite . by GMA News Network (one of the two largest broadcasting companies in the country) also illustrates the definition of the country's territory.


==== Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan ====
In a brought before, and decided by the ], which contested the constitutionality of the , the petitioners argue, that the law which declared ] (Philippine claimed portion of the ]) and ] as ''regime of islands'' instead of enclosing them in the Philippine baselines, has weakened the claim of the Philippines over these territories. The non-mention of ], could be construed that it is not a territory that the Philippines claims. This is not rocket science. Why would these petitioners against the Baseline Law, who are concerned about territorial diminution of the Philippines, not voice their concern about the non-inclusion of Macclesfield Bank, if it were indeed a territory the Philippines claims? Plain logic and common sense do not constitute original research.
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


Yes, as ] says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.
A in the University of Wollongong by a Filipino expert on the matter, studied this issue, and no where would he indicate that Macclesfield is claimed/should be claimed by the Philippines by properly enclosing and defining it in its territory.


There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
It is hard to conceive that the non-mention of Macclesfield Bank as a territory claimed by the Philippines, ''should not be construed'' that the government of the Philippines does not lay claim to this land feature. I'd also like to pose questions to guide those who will comment on the matter:
:*Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim?
:*Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself?
:*Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim?


:I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. ] (]) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, if one has to go by official maps, though trivial it is used by governments as a propaganda arm to illustrate its territory and the areas they claim, one can just go to the of the Philippine government and download the "Philippine Administrative Map with the Kalayaan Group of Islands" located at the bottom right side of the site. One will find that Macclesfield is not even identified as a feature in the map. -- ] (]) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
::My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). ] (]) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8 ====
:: It is immaterial in this dispute to put forward the number of years an editor has been in Misplaced Pages. The sources presented pass ], ], and ]. Nothing in those policies warrant the need of a primary source if reliable, verifiable secondary sources are available to prove the same. In fact, according to ], ''Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event.'' '''''They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.'''''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by TempusTacet ====
:: The argument that just because an editor has not found the material cited in the secondary sources in his perceived primary source is flawed as well. All this time, he might looking for something that cannot be found there at all. Are we to ignore the content of four reliable secondary sources because we cannot seem to find such information in our perceived primary source? If we are to entertain the idea that such claim does not exist at all, ] stil says, ''the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing ====
:: According to ], '' includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.'' All four sources presented generally support the idea of the existence of such claim. Nothing was presented that would support the contrary, other than the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist at all since he cannot find it at his perceived primary source.
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{tl|MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). ] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Laws are not meant to be interpreted by the ordinary Misplaced Pages editor. As non-experts on law (unless strongly supported by reliable sources), editors must be careful not to tread the path of original research (e.g. reading these by themselves and drawing conclusions upon them without the support of reliable secondary sources to support such assertion). Laws, afterall, can be interpreted in many ways by many parties unless the state that enacts it publishes its implementing guidelines. Laymen are not qualified to assert that these laws are explicit unless supported by authoritative references. The Baseline Law, which the other editor insists is clear enough to distinguish which territories are being claimed or not, is just one law and is therefore does not constitute the whole system of evidence that will be used for arbitration in an international body.


:@], let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the ] section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the ] process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use ] if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph.
:: I requested for any material at all to support the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist and that '''ALL''' four sources presented inaccurate information. He has yet to prove that the four sources did. It's wrong to assume that all of them erred in publishing such unless one can prove that their credibility is questionable or they have been posting ] information. In this case, the editor who asserts that these sources have published wrong/false/inaccurate information has the ].
:(I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) ] (]) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion ====
:: Moreover, reliable sources should have their published information taken as true until proven eventually to be false. If these sources published wrongly about the claim in the first place, the Philippine government would have already issued a correction on the matter or these agencies would have not published such information if they haven't researched it thoroughly, unless they're willing to gamble their credibility. None of those scenarios happened. There has yet to have a '']'' on the part of the US State Dept., etc that they published wrong information. There was no comment from the Philippine government about such claim. ].
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by ] below, as well as ], and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the ''Zeroeth statements by editors'' section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
:: The question, therefore, is whether the other editor is '''qualified''' to draw conclusions upon himself after he read the material he brought forward. Taking into account ] and ], are individual editors more reliable than four independent reliable sources (which we will assume would have done extensive research before publication)?
:Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. ] (]) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 ====
:: The other editor has posed questions for commentary. I'll answer and throw back a few of my own:
<div style="font-size:smaller"> (Pardon. My mobile IP keeps changing). I completely agree to the viewpoints supported by user @Oolong. I also want the people to know that there is no such division between "pathological symptom" and "non-pathological symptom". They are same features of a communication and socialization "disorder" where more than one neurotype is involved. It is the same, impairing symptom that can be credited to either neurotype, but unfortunately attributed to the cognitive minority solely. Although the article covers some aspects of neurodiversity perspective, still its language is too much negative and pathological, which isn't very helpful or uplifting for Autistic individuals. Too much importance given in biological causes and "epidemiology", while the more useful sress should have been on accommodation, accessibility, and AAC (Alternative Augmentative Communication). Trying to conceal the harmful effects of ABA therapies is misleading and un-encyclopedic. ] (]) 18:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) </div>
::* ''Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim?'' Acting as an independent secondary source that is not party to the claim, it is wrong to assume that a high-level department of another sovereign state would publish information in an inaccurate manner without extensive research. An editor who insists on the contrary should provide proof that the information contained in their reports is questionable.


==== Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo ====
::* ''Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself?'' A newspaper need not be an official agency of the government to publish government positions on a number of issues. In fact, if such agency is under the stewardship of the government, its reliability is questionable for suspected bias (see ]). As all four sources were independent and their reliability as a secondary source has not been determined as questionable, we take their published information as verifiable (even if other editors express concern if they're true or not; see ]).
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
{{hat|Comment in your own section. ] (]) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''Note: Editor is "]" and will not be participating.'' --] (]) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


=== Autism discussion ===
::* ''Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim?'' It depends upon the State. As non-experts to the issue, editors should refrain from drawing conclusions upon themselves after examining primary sources. As editors are generally not persons of authorities on the subject that they edit, what we include in Misplaced Pages should be preferably lifted from secondary sources who provide critical commentary on a number of issues and whose published information are verifiable and reliable (see ], ], ], and ].
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


:: My questions:
::* How qualified is an individual WP editor in determining a State's interpretation of its laws upon inspection of them?
::* Is the information published in the supplied sources ] or not? Are the sources ] or not?
::* Should information lifted from several secondary sources be immediately construed as inaccurate/false in the absence of or non-access to a primary source that supports such information?
::] (]) 11:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I think the other editor presented his/her case, so I have to present mine. If it's arbitration the other editor wanted then let other judge the merits of the cited sources.
:::As far as I know, I have presented maps drawn to represent the demarcations of Philippine territory, and it doesn't take a lawyer/cartographer to understand base points presented in the law (which identified the land features) and drawn in a map like this , which is similar to other maps I have presented above. A reading of the Supreme Court decision on the case also clearly presents what were the points being presented by the petitioners against the New Baseline Law the Philippine Congress passed, and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that. The laws pertaining to the demarcations of Philippine territory and the Supreme Court decision was pretty straight forward, but still thankfully there are maps to represent the Philippine territorial laws, which would not take a lawyer or an expert on the subject to interpret, as these can be plotted by anyone with a good mapping tool. I believe it doesn't take a literature major to understand a literary work. I think the other editor must also recognize that other good articles in Misplaced Pages have not actually been written by experts on the subject. -- ] (]) 11:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent|4}}
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. While I stand to be corrected, I am unfamiliar with any Misplaced Pages ] which supports Namayan's claim that, "The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication." He/she may believe that is the way that Misplaced Pages ''should'' work, but the way in which to achieve that is to propose that standard as a policy or guideline using the procedure set out in ]. Until then, reliable secondary sources are sufficient to include an assertion in Misplaced Pages and at least some of the sources offered by Xeltran appear to be reliable (but ''not'' including the US State Department source, which as a self-published source ] as a reliable source for claims about a third party). In light of that understanding, whether or not Namayan's sources require ] is a moot point. Regards, ] (]) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:: Thanks for your insights, TransporterMan. While I do believe that articles of such nature are highly desired to have primary sources that validate their secondary citations, I haven't found any current Misplaced Pages policy that supports or warrants such "requirement". I believe the is sufficient enough to satisfy the following conditions which I see is an amenable common ground for all parties in this dispute: Place the Philippine claim in the article with the corresponding secondary sources and place a {{tl|better source}} tag. I hope that it will be understood by any reader who stumbles upon that page that such a claim by the Philippines was mentioned in a reliable source, although a better source is being sought after if only to satisfy the need for a primary one. ] (]) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail? -- ] (]) 05:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: There's no proof that the secondary sources contradict your preferred primary source. Your view that the articles contradict the maps you've read have not been affirmed by an independent, authoritative reference. While you may believe that Misplaced Pages needs to work in a way that you advocate it to be, current WP policy affirms the inclusion of a Philippine claim based on the sources I've presented. ] (]) 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Such maps would qualify as secondary sources too much like the references that you had cited. Why would there have to be double standards? Such maps were made by a reputable news agency too, as well the study about Philippine territory of an expert on the subject. -- ] (]) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Maps have to be examined by qualified persons of authority and have their findings self-published then picked up by an independent source for analysis. So no, not anyone could just read a map and take it as face value. If a map points to a body of water as ''East Sea'', and one ordinary reader believes it to be called so, is he then absolutely correct in asserting such, when there is a ] going on about whatever that body of water's name is? A map then, by itself, I believe, does not constitute as a secondary source. The study of the PH territory of an expert of a subject is a ], just like what TransporterMan pointed out about the US State Dept. report. Even if we take away the US report on the list of references, I still have 3 others to support the inclusion of a Philippine claim in the article.
:::::: A source (believed to reliable, yet to be proven the opposite) publishes the claim. No WP policy blocks such inclusion. No current WP policy requires that ''in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication''. Why then should it not be included unless it was clearly proven to be wrong through a contrary claim by another secondary source? WP is not the place to assert which is right or wrong. A related WP essay (not a policy, mind you) entitled ] affirms ] by saying ''"verifiability, not truth" - whether material can be verified by reliable sources, not whether individual editors believe is true.'' It goes on by saying that WP reflects the information published by reliable sources, not an editor's thoughts. That's why policies like ], ], and ] in place to ensure that every information is neutral and verifiable through citations to reliable sources. ] (]) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is pointless because the answer to Namayan's question, "Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail?" is that under Misplaced Pages policy, the secondary sources clearly prevail ''unless'' you can produce a primary government source which ''expressly says'' that they make no claim to these places. <small>(And even then, even if there ''was'' a government document which expressly says that they make no claim to the area, since other reliable secondary sources say that they do, that would not prevent an assertion being made in the article that they make the claim. Instead, it would merely require that ''both'' the assertion that they make such a claim and the assertion that they do not make the claim being reported in the article. Misplaced Pages does not weigh or attempt to reconcile conflicting sources, it merely reports both claims.}</small> The fact that there are some government documents which do not include or mention it requires interpretation of the purpose and scope of those documents and such interpretation is forbidden by the ] policy. The fact that some documents or laws say what territories the government claims for certain purposes does not necessarily mean that the included places are all the places claimed by that government for other purposes and, further, does not mean that new claims have not arisen since that document or law was written. (I'm not saying that is what has happened here, but only saying that the mere ''possibility'' of such eventualities prevents the use of proof-by-silence. However, the ''mere existence'' of this discussion ] on your talk page over the meaning of the baseline law illustrates that the scope and purpose of the baseline law are a matter which are less than apparent on its face. For a primary source to be usable under ], the assertion for which it is being used must be ''absolutely apparent'' on the face of the source. Indeed, in , you tell another editor, "It will help you if you would read documents about UNCLOS, and why countries have to docket their territorial limits and submit it before the UN deadline of May 13, 2009." If it is necessary for a person to do such reading in order to understand the scope and import of a document, then that document cannot be used as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages under the ] policy for anything which arises out of that scope or import.) I see absolutely no support in Misplaced Pages policy for Namayan's position in this matter. Regards, ] (]) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
: I placed a new reference to support the Philippine claim (see ). It's still from the same publisher but it's more recent and the explanation for such a claim is better explained than the previous one. As no Misplaced Pages policy currently prevents the inclusion of the Philippine claim in the M. Bank article basing from the sources presented and I see no need to tag it with {{tl|bettersource}} (as the presented reference seems sufficient to support the information), I think this issue can now be resolved. ] (]) 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
{{DRN status|This appears to be either stale or resolved. — ] (]) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)}}


===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)===
I will try to contact the Inquirer article authors. I've been reading up on the Philippine territorial claims and this is the first time that I have ever heard that the Philippines is claiming Macclesfield Bank. I believe this is sloppy journalism on the part of Inquirer. --] (]) 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on ] and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;
:Volunteer comment: if editors of the page want to pursue the issue, they should query the sources at ]. ] (]) 17:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
*Be ]. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
*Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a ] is likely to ignore it.
*Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
*Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
*Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.


In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the ] of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).
<small>After posting the closing note, above, I noticed that even though Namayan is an experienced editor here with 9,000+ edits since 2006 that he has not edited since July 6. While he may have decided to walk away from this discussion or, indeed, from Misplaced Pages altogether, I'm disinclined to jump to that conclusion without giving it a few more days. I'm going to leave this thread open through the weekend until at least 13:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC), and will then close it as stale or resolved if it has not picked back up. — ] (]) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)</small>


I don't yet know whether ] is the right forum to resolve disputes about ], but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions.
:I'll be commenting on this thread in due time, but I think people here should be aware that Namayan is currently attending ] in Washington, D.C. Now as to whether or not he'll be using that time to edit Misplaced Pages, I cannot conclusively answer, but I can say that he's not retired, nor is he on hiatus. --] <sup>(])</sup> 06:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
] (]) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
== Template:Braille ==
:I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
:Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
:I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is (published in the ) and ], posted here and . You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. ] (]) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===First statement by possible moderator (Autism)===
{{DR case status|open}}
I asked for specific statements of how the ] should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read ]. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of ] describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the ] should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by ], and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by ]. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the ] standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary ].
{{drn filing editor|Vanisaac|08:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 08:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Template:Braille}}


If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the ]. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the ], and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised ]. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as '''First statements by editors (Autism)''', because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic ] are met.
We have been in a long dispute over which braille systems should be included under the heading of "unified braille". Specifically, the main contention is over ]. I have already requested a 3rd opinion, and I waited for several weeks for those recommendations to be accepted by the other editor. When it finally became clear that the other user in the dispute would not be implementing the third opinion, I did so in the most neutral way possible, and was reverted within minutes.


After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the ], I will know better whether ] is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? ] (]) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


:Thanks @]! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years.
:* {{user|Vanisaac}}
:@] has ] - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there?
:* {{user|Kwamikagami}}
:I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Misplaced Pages guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... ] (]) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:* {{user|Coastside}} (3rd opinion)
::::@]@] I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):
:::::: " Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. "
::] (]) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


===First statements by editors (Autism)===
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
==== 1. what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same ====


The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field.
Yes.


Let's take the opening paragraph.
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Template:Braille<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


{{bq|Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a ''neurodevelopmental disorder'' characterized by ''repetitive, restricted, and inflexible'' patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; ''deficits'' in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that ''symptoms'' cause significant ''impairment'' in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context.}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted.
talk page discussion 3 May - 12 May. 3rd opinion requested 18 June, answered by Coastside 18-19 June.


Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted:
* ''How do you think we can help?''


{{bq|The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental ''condition'' (or conditions) characterized by ''difficulties'' in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the ''presence'' of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common ''signs'' include unusual responses to sensory stimuli. }}
Given that Kwamikagami is an admin, and that this has had a chilling effect on my editing, I think that simply having more editors who are willing to stand for policy would be a help.


Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. ''Condition'' is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of ''disorder'',<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/1362361315588200 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134030/}}</ref> although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent ''deficits'' in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see ]); the ''difficulties'', however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term ''symptom'' to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics.
]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 08:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


I recently simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that ] may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues.
===Template:Braille discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
This is not the dispute. The dispute is what to call the family of French-based braille alphabets. It is only by contravening this convention that Algerian braille is notable. At first we had "Latin based", but Vanisaac objected that wasn't accurate. Then we had "Universal braille", and Vanisaac was happy with it for a while, but then changed his mind. I don't really care what we call it, but I do object to Vanisaac's OR that certain braille alphabets are "unclassified" because he can't find them in a list, despite the fact that they are transparently based on the nearly universal French order, as he himself admits. That would be like arguing that the Latvian alphabet is "unclassified" because it doesn't appear in a list of Latin-based alphabets.


The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for ]
We seem to be confusing the title for the topic. Nav boxes, like articles, are based on their topic, and the title needs to be chosen to fit, not the other way around. — ] (]) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


<small>Above entered by {{noping|Oolong}}</small>
:I vehemently disagree with Tibetan braille being classified as such, and the 3rd opinion says that ''any'' system not found in a source as being part of this system should not be included in it.
====Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. ====
:Whether you invent names like "Latin based" or "French derived", it doesn't change that there are no sources which support your classification. The fact that I would actually agree with many of them - the notable exception being ] - doesn't change the fact that without a source actually saying it, it's OR - either on your part (for Tibetan) or on both our parts (for Armenian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Yugoslav, &c). So while I may not like the 3rd opinion's finding and solution, it is the only one that is actually in line with Misplaced Pages policy on original research. If you had a citation for any of your claims, we wouldn't be having this dispute. The fact is, we only have one explicit source listing unified braille systems - the '54 Unesco report - and they list only French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


''Classification'' goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both
::You want to claim that Tibetan braille is not French-based. Fine. Please provide a ref. The Unesco report is irrelevant, since that's not the topic in question and does not address the issue (obviously, since it was published in 1953 and Tibetan braille was not invented until 1992—essentially, you're arguing that no alphabet invented after 1953 can be based on French/international braille, which is ridiculous).
''diagnosis'' and ''signs and symptoms''.
::On April 25, when you introduced the title "unified", you defined it like this:
:::''In 1878, the proposed an international braille standard, where braille codes for different languages and scripts would be based, not on the order of a particular alphabet, but on phonetic correspondence and transliteration to Latin.''
::Please provide a ref that Tibetan braille does not fit this pattern, since it so obviously does. (You argued that the %age of cognacy in Tibetan braille is too low, but that is OR: you have not provided a published cut-off point. Even the French and German-braille %ages are not very high.)
:: — ] (]) 09:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::A) I don't have to find a citation to refute original research. B) My count on Tibetan was 12 anomalies out of 34 letters, or 65%. German has 0 anomalies or 1, if Eszett is not a ligature, and French is maybe 1, depending on how accented letters are treated by the World Braille Council. That's 96% at very the least for French/German. I'm not sure exactly where I would stick the demarcation line, but I can tell you that it is somewhere between a D+ and an A. C) Where I would stick the demarcation is immaterial, because it is OR. The reference we have says French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian only. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Of course you do. That's the definition of OR. If you have no citation, you have OR, and we don't accept OR. Nearly everything you've said about Tibetan braille, for months now, has been OR.
::::We calculated the %ages for French and German. They were rather low—French has 14 anomalies out of 44 letters, or 68%. Your ref says "based on" Latin. Tibetan braille is based on Latin, as you have admitted.
::::Please provide a ref that the cut-off date for Universal Braille alphabets is 1953. Not that it's relevant, because that's not the issue here. — ] (]) 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, '''you''' calculated percentages for French and German on a basis that I consider both unsupported by the actual evidence and fundamentally irrational. But again, I'm not arguing that you should accept my interpretation of braille unification, only that we implement the neutral third opinion and follow Misplaced Pages OR policy: The only source with an explicit list says French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian are unified braille systems. If you can find a '''''SOURCE''''' for any others, I will be elated to include them. Absent a source, it is OR, and does not belong. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::So you admit that your opinion is just that, an opinion, and OR. I suppose it won't matter to explain, again, that the Unesco source is irrelevant, since you haven't understood it so far. If you can find a RS that Tibetan braille is not Latin based, please present it, and notify me on my talk page. — ] (]) 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Have you not read anything I've said above? The only classification that is sourced is that French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian are unified. EVERY classification of a braille script beyond those nine is original research by either of us. I freely admit, above, multiple times, that either of us trying to classify any other braille systems in such a way is contrary to ], which is why I implemented the 3rd opinion recommendation earlier today, which you promptly reverted. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course I read it. Do you think it's not possible for someone to be informed of your opinion and yet still disagree with it? That's quite arrogant of you. What you're claiming is that we need to restrict ourselves to a list published in 1953. Any alphabet they omitted cannot be included in our template; any alphabet devised since then cannot be included in our template. That's far beyond the requirements of OR. There's such thing as common sense, and recognizing the Latin alphabetical order in alphabets is trivial. If we follow your fundamentalist interpretation, we can't say they follow the ABC order, but we can't call them "unclassified" either, because we have no source for that. We can't call them "other", because we have no source for that either. Our only choice would be to delete them from the template. Yet you're happy to include most of them. You just object to one, which crosses an arbitrary line which you invented. — ] (]) 22:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course they can be included in the template. We just can't give them a classification that is unsupported by documentation. Trying to make up rules and statistical interpretation is the crux of the problem that we have. We have a different interpretation of what makes a system unified. Without documentation, trying to classify them is OR. So the default position is to simply not classify them when we can't cite it. I may not necessarily agree with that arrangement (I don't), but I can at least defend it with a source. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see ] for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals.
{{cue}} I am a volunteer here at DRN. The primary dispute here seems to be pretty clearly addressed by ]: ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.'' What material is being added or restored here? The previous status quo was ''without'' the use of "unclassified" - ergo, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to ''change'' that status quo. ] (]) 13:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute that has gone on for several months now, and we have significantly expanded the number of Braille articles in the template since then, so there are two questions: 1) How do we identify a status quo of the navigation template? 2) How do we incorporate all of the additional articles that have been added to the navigation template in that time? ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::Well, that's simply a case of looking at the article's history and determining when and how the dispute started. Where was the first change-and-revert? Whoever made that first change and was reverted is responsible for providing the independent evidence. ] (]) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The relevant criterion is the 1878 congress, quoted in the 1953 Unesco document and every other history of braille, which declared that braille in all languages should follow the order of Braille's original alphabet rather than their own alphabetical orders. The defining difference between French braille and the early English braille alphabet was small: W had been tacked on as an extra letter rather than being in position #23; after the international standard was established, it was moved to match the French position. There is now a large family of such braille alphabets. They're self-evident, as they have a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4, e = 5, etc., or else that same order applied phonetically. That's just what we have in Tibetan, a point which VanIsaac concedes. Almost all diverge from perfect unity in one respect or another (extra letters, sometimes reassignments of basic letters esp. in non-Latin scripts); the question is whether there's a cut-off point, which VanIsaac judges Tibetan has crossed. He has no source to justify such a call.


''Possible causes'' should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise ''epidemiology''.
:::VanIsaac objects to calling this international family of braille alphabets "Unified international braille", saving that for a rather poorly defined convention in the Unesco publication. Fine. I don't particularly care what we call it, and have changed the rubric in the template to "Other French-based alphabets" to meet his objection. Perhaps he has some other title, which would better capture the "international braille standard" order set forth in 1878 for English, French, and German.
''Management'' is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the ] entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around ''access'': access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on.


''Prognosis'' probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten.
:::(BTW, only three Tibetan braille letters, ''q x y'', contradict the original braille standard. Compare pinyin, where ''q x r'' contradict the norms for Latin alphabets, yet is still considered to be Latin. VanIsaac judges this to be too much, but I don't see how that's anything but his personal judgement.) — ] (]) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


''History'' and especially ''society and culture'' probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article.
{{od}} Here are some passages from the 1953 doc that VanIsaac places so much importance in:
:'' the tendencies in America and Germany to re-arrange the Braille alphabet ... Congress decided ... that it should be adopted ... with the values of its symbols unaltered from those of the original French.'' (p 25)


which contrasts them.]


Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough?
:''This was effective as far as the scope of the Roman alphabet allowed, but, as most Asian and African languages contain more letters or sounds than Roman had equivalents for, they had to find some way of representing them. Most of the designers of Braille spoke English and some of them turned to the contractions of English Braille to find signs which would provide precedents for local letter values ... But beyond these again, many non-European alphabets included letters for which no Braille precedent had been created. Arbitrary signs had to be allotted to them, with the consequence that even throughout these traditional Brailles only limited uniformity was achieved.'' (pp 27–28)


--] (]) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::The interesting thing about this quote is that it's actually talking about braille systems in Asia in the period where there were multiple braille systems in India and the mess that had been caused by different applications of similar principles to all the different languages of India. The actual development of unified world braille is captured several pages later: "In 1949, the government of India, alive to the difficulty of reaching accord within India, asked UNESCO to study the whole problem on an international level." (pg 30) There is a great deal of history of other Asian braille systems, as well as Perso-Arabic braille given, but the conclusion does not come until page 39 - "In 1950, the government of India (...) accepted the recommendations of its (Unesco's) braille committee (but) the details of the signs for many letters in Indian and other languages remained to be determined. The Unesco program included a provision for the Perso-Arabic conference; and the government of India raised the question as to whether it and Ceylon might not also participate so that simultaneous agreement could be reached on such letter-sounds which several large linguistic families shared in common. (... The conference's) results laid the foundation for complete uniformity between all the languages within India and between them and Ceylon, while at the same time securing the maximum affinity with the braille systems designed for the Perso-Arabic and African languages and the old traditional braille of Europe." So while the original development of unified braille happened in the 1870s and 1880s, it wasn't until 1950 that it was truly extended outside of the closely related languages and orthographies of Europe. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
This is the ] of which VanIsaac speaks. It is not actually a unified system, but rather a family of partially compatible systems. Even English, French, and German, the original three brailles, diverge from each other to a large degree. How much divergence is too much would of course be a judgement call, and would need to be sourced to not be OR. — ] (]) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


===Second statement by moderator (Autism)===
{{cue}} Okay, thank you; that summarizes the locus of the dispute, I think. Now, VanIsaac, how do you maintain that your proposed additions are ''not'' original research? Remember, OR is anything that can't be verified by ''the letter'' of outside sources (i.e. not simply ''your interpretation'' of outside sources, but what the sources literally say). ] (]) 01:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
My explanation about ] is my own interpretation, based on the principle to ]. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion.


The unregistered editor is strongly advised to ] if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses.
:So there are actually two completely separate questions here. The first is what my preferred grouping would be, which is actually identical to Kwami's, except that I firmly believe that Tibetan can not be defended as being unified, Latin-script based, French based, or whatever term Kwami makes up for it. For the record, I consider "Unified braille", "Unified international braille" or "World braille" to be the prefered terms, as those are actually attested in outside sources. Contrary to the original usage I had seen, it appears that "World braille" is actually more common than "Unified", due to its development by and oversight of the World Braille Council, but Unified is somewhat more descriptive, so I think we're splitting hairs on this one. So if you want to know what my prefered version is, it would be the version from May, with Tibetan not erroneously classified as Unified.


The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the ]. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the ].
:Now, the second question is what I can actually defend with concrete citations, of which I can only find a single source that actually lists the various unified world braille compatible systems, which is the grouping that I've consistently given above - from page 74-79 of the Unesco report - French, English, Greek, Russian, Devanagari - representative of all the Indian languages, called Bharati braille (pp 112-113), Perso-Arabic, Indonesian, and Swahili - representative of African languages including Malgache, Hausa, Sulu, Shona, Mundang, Chinyanja, and even Maori (pp 82-84). This is the version that I believe actually conforms to the policy guidelines brought in by User:Coastside the last time I tried to actually gain a consensus on this issue, and which was so perfunctorily reverted to its current state. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement ].
PS, Kwami has taken the opportunity of this process to again thwart consensus by adding the invented "Category:French-based braille alphabets" to the contested articles and . I consider it to be extremely counterproductive, antagonistic, and acting in bad faith to push non-consensus actions while in the middle of a dispute resolution process. Kwami, you did the same sort of thing (contested page moves) back when we had people trying to come to a consensus on Writing Systems article naming conventions last year, and I consider it to be taking advantage of my refusal to edit war with you while this dispute is ongoing. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:(uninvolved editor comment) Would you both please consider the possibility of regrouping from scratch. Perhaps English, Other alphabetic, Non-alphabetic. The purpose of a template is not to instruct but to help a reader find their way to the articles they need. If someone is looking for information about Japanese Braille they are not at that point worried about whether it is a syllabary or abugida. That is detail that needs to be spelt out in the article. ] (]) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::I've tried several times to suggest presentations that side-step the whole contentious issue and had them rejected out-of-hand by Kwami. If you look at the ], you can see that I drew up a version organized geographically, and the rejection offered absolutely no solution to help get past the dispute. It's quite frustrating to have your good-faith efforts to resolve a dispute be so summarilly dismissed. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 11:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Are there any other questions?
Nobody has contributed for three days. If you guys can't help mediate this dispute, where do I go from here? ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 02:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
] (]) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:I suggest starting here: ] --] (]) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The provision about responding within 48 hours is in ], which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? ] (]) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. ] (]) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:"The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Nevermind. It appears that Kwami was ] and ] and has ]. I guess I'll just try to do my best to implement a neutral presentation on here. I welcome anyone to review my edits and look forward to working with you. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:@] Hi there, I have a question following your third statement. I would like to clarify the issues with the proposed lede change, and with the interpretations of "models", but I'm unsure as to where I should write this out here and if this is necessary to do at the moment. ] (]) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] Respected editor, I have noticed a miscommunication. Although I could not read the rules and formats of dispute resolution; and also did not took part in the dispute resolution due to mental health issues, I want to notify that since some of my talk page comments have been marked as relevant by various editors; I plea for forgiveness regarding unintended miscommunication(s). I have just discovered at least two editors have wrote regarding '''''"at least one user not being familiar"''''' (probably I am the intended user) "not knowing" the use of "et al". But this is totally a miscommunication mainly originating from my side.
:I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment ] where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic.
:I know, '''some of my conversation was not nice''', including ] or me '''venting out the stresses''' on several place such as ] , which was suspected or condemned as canvassing ] . I apologize for all these (and if any other) miscommunication, and I realize that the nature of this topic is so stressful for me that it would be better for me to stay off from this discussion by all and every means.
:I ask for forgiveness to the every respected editors. ] (]) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, sorry to ask in this rather odd place, but something seems to have gone wrong with this page - when I click 'edit' on any of the relevant sections, it goes to either edit the entire page, or a different, unrelated section (and either way, the visual editor isn't available).
:I assume something has gone weird with the markup somewhere, but I have no idea how to diagnose problems of this type! ] (]) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Try a "hard refresh" ({{keypress|⌘|shift|R}} on a Mac; I don't know what the equivalent is on Windows). If that doesn't work, drop by ] with a link to the section you want to click the button in, and then tell me which section actually opens for you, and what kind of a computer you're using. ] (]) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{keypress|Ctrl|shift|R}} on everything else. ] (]) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


===Second statements by editors (Autism)===
== Talk:Fascism#democracy ==
====List of Perceived Relevant Discussions====
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] <small>(Note: one conversation in here was due to at least one user not being familiar with the Latin phrase '']'', which means "and others" - a standardised way to refer to multiple authors such as in scientific or academic contexts).</small>
::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


To my knowledge, the relevant discussions have not occurred outside of the article's talk page.] (]) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|R-41|19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Fascism#democracy}}


::: I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
::::Thank you, you are perfectly correct. My apologies. More accurate to say that the discussion about the use of ''et al'' was an irrelevant and separate issue to the topics here, and was due to a miscommunication rather than you being unfamiliar with the term. I would forgive you but I don't think you've done anything wrong here at all! ] (]) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''
:I ask for forgiveness from all the respected editors for this very unintended miscommunication ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


===Third statement by moderator (Autism)===
The problem is involving a dispute over fascism's political relationship with democracy. The article titled ] currently says that fascism rejects ] but says that fascism denies that it is entirely against democracy. Two users, Yiddi and The Four Deuces (TFD) have claimed that fascism did not claim to be democratic and that it was opposed democracy entirely. The user Trust Is All You Need (TIAYN) noted that fascism has claimed to support a form of democracy. TFD made a statement that caused the dispute to solidify, TFD said: "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" - the bolded part is the part that I and others have contested is not accurate.
Please read ]. This is the new set of rules for this mediation.


Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it.
I agreed with TIAYN that fascism did indeed claim to support democracy, and I provided evidence of fascists declaring that fascism supported a form of democracy. Italian Fascist theorist ] in the '']'' that he ] for Mussolini, declares support for an "''organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy''". I utilized the World Fascism encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires as a reference for the quote, and furthermore the source goes on to explain fascism's claims to being democratic, see here: , Blamires' source is a reputable source that is available at English language university libraries, including ]'s library, see here . Note that I am '''''not''''' saying that fascism '''is''' democratic in practice, I am saying that fascism '''''claims''''' to be democratic. What I am saying is that the issue of fascism being undemocratic '''''in practice''''' does not mean thereby that the ideology '''''opposed''''' democracy or was '''''not''''' democratic '''''in theory'''''.


In the proposed ] by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads: {{tqb|Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments.}} That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is ] because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice.
TFD responded that sources by scholars were needed to verify this. I provided sources from preeminent scholar on fascism ] and ] (I initially forgot that I used Gregor's source and said it was by another scholar on fascism, ], out of confusion, because the authors have two books that are visually similar). Both these sources clearly showed scholars acknowledging fascism's ideological claim to be democratic, see here for Griffin's source: , see here for Gregor's source: . TFD responded by saying that ] applied. I responded that the issue of TFD claiming that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" is factually inaccurate and that ''that claim'' cannot hold WP:WEIGHT because the sources I provided demonstrate that fascism '''''did claim''''' to be democratic in theory. I suggested that TFD accept a compromise involving a statement along the lines of: "fascism is widely regarded as undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they are democratic". TFD did not acknowledge this. The argument continued, and I and the users TIAYN and Collect have grown frustrated over what we view as stubbornness by TFD to admit that his argument that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" is not factually accurate and is thus an untenable argument. TFD claims that I am promoting an obscure claim.--] (]) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


Are there any other questions at this time?
:* {{user|Yiddi}}
] (])
:* {{user|The Four Deuces}}
:* {{user|Trust Is All You Need}}
:* {{user|R-41}}
:* {{user|Collect}}


===Third statements by editors (Autism)===
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Misplaced Pages article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted.


I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Misplaced Pages (]) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. ] (]) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes.


====List of discussions from WhatamIdoing====
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Talk:Fascism#democracy<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>
I think the present dispute started about two months ago:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] <small>(Note: one tangent in here was due to some people not being familiar with the Latin phrase '']'', which means "and others" . It is a common way to refer to multiple authors in scientific journals, especially in journals using ] .)</small>
::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


As far as I know, most of the disputed edits and discussions are at this one article. ] (]) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


:@] ::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800</nowiki> where I explicitly wrote "<nowiki>'''</nowiki>Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.<nowiki>'''</nowiki>" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase <nowiki>''</nowiki>et al.<nowiki>''</nowiki> which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Have attempted ] to seek a compromise. The compromise was involving an acceptance by TFD and users on a phrase we could both agree upon, basically along the lines of the following: "''Fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they support democracy''". Misplaced Pages:Negotiation failed, frustration between users has grown.
:I ask for all editors' forgiveness on this unintended miscommunication ] (]) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::@], please do not worry. I added this note so that Robert would know that it was a perfectly innocent and unimportant thing, so he would focus on the other (non-tangential) comments. ] (]) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


====Response and list of discussions from FactOrOpinion====
* ''How do you think we can help?''
Since you (Robert McClenon) have posted a "Third statement by moderator," I'm guessing that I should respond in this "Third statements by editors" section, even though I never posted anything in the First or Second statements sections. I've read DRN G and agree to it. As I noted earlier, I haven't been involved for that long. I haven't read any of the archived discussions. I have only read comments on the current talk page, though not all of them, and I responded in even fewer sections. My list:


* ]
There needs to be a resolution on the specific issue of TFD's continued claim that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''", that TFD is using to justify an argument that fascism was entirely, and without any qualifications, "''opposed'' to democracy", because I have presented evidence that contradicts this claim. As I have said, TFD is refusing to accept the material as disproving her/his argument. He/she claims that ] applies to justify her/his claim, I claim that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to her/his claim because it is factually inaccurate. Her/his claim needs to be reviewed as to whether it is logically tenable to uphold, given the fact that sources I have have been provided that appear to completely refute it.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ''(edited to add:)'' ]
] (]) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:I made I talk page topic where I complained about "symptoms" being in the lead, but because I'm on phone and it's allmost 3:00 ill find it later. ] (]) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


===Talk:Fascism#democracy discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
:From uninvolved volunteer. I suggest working in two steps. First reach agreement about the sources that you think are most relevant to the topic. You'll be using objective criteria like author's expertise, academic publisher, reviews, how much on the topic, how recent. Then look at them to see how they treat the different aspects of fascism. That should help you move away from yes/no on particular phrasings, and instead give a thorough treatment to the relationship between democracy and the different theories and practices of fascism. ] (]) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
::I understand your idea, but the issue of TFD's claim that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" being contradicted by the fact that in theory there are multiple examples of fascism being declared by its theorists or leaders to be democratic. Again the issue is not that it actually is democratic in practice, but that in theory it did claim to be. The problem is that TFD's claim that it is not consistent with what fascist theories proclaimed, and that indeed scholars like one of the most preeminent scholars on fascism ], and another prominent scholar on fascism, ], have noted fascist claims to be democratic. I understand and appreciate what you have said, but it seems to me that TFD's statement, that he is using for his argument, is factually inaccurate.--] (]) 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to commend User:R-41 for writing a well detailed but striaghtforward file and Dispute Overview.] (]) 23:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
::It is also accurate and dispassionate, and I commend him highly for it. Meanwhile, I think it would profit others to read the discussions at the article talk page. ] (]) 01:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
::Also note TFD's "response" at . Where one editor dismoisses the sheaf of answers provided by another editor as "pointless" I fear that this is not just a "content dispute" but a case of ] being demonstrated. Cheers. ] (]) 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree with Collect.--] (]) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
::::We need to focus on the article, not on editor behaviour. If someone makes a statement on a talk page that you don't find convincing, especially if it's a short statement, probably best to ignore it. I think there is a substantive disagreement about article content behind this, which is the only thing we could address here. Could you state what that disagreement is. ] (]) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::The disagreement is about the basis of TFD's argument that the article should say that "''Fascism opposes democracy''" based on TFD's claim that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''". The reason why TFD's statement is important is because that is the basis for her/his argument for removing the current sourced sentence from the intro that says that "''Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy.''" and replacing it with "''Fascism opposes democracy"''. The problem is that there is evidence that fascists ''in their theory'' declared themselves to be democratic, but they did indicate that they opposed ]. I have provided several sources to verify that fascist did claim to be democratic. Therefore, the fascists did not ''oppose'' democracy - "''oppose''" indicates that fascists held a negative value towards democracy as a whole without any qualifications - the evidence suggests that in their ideology, they did not declare such a negative value towards it as a whole without any qualifications, but they did indeed oppose liberal democracy.--] (]) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


===Fourth statement by moderator (Autism)===
Absent from R-41's exposition, which presents only support for his/her position re. the disputed content (and yet is eulogized somewhere above as "dispassionate" and highly commendable!), is any material that might support TFD's position. E.g. Jackson J. Spielvogel, associate professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University, in ''Western Civilization: Since 1300'' (Cengage Learning, 2011), quotes Mussolini/Gentile: "Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it" ''et seq''. . ] (]) 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
At this point, I want to clarify the overall approach that we are taking or will take. First, is the main issue the overall viewpoint with which autism is discussed? The current article discusses autism almost entirely as a medical condition. Is the main issue that some editors think that the article needs an overall rework to state that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a medical condition or disorder, and that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a human condition or a neurotype. Is that the main issue? If my understanding is correct, then I agree, because the ] is to describe the different views of different ]. If that is the main issue, do we have at least rough consensus that the article should be revised accordingly? If there is a rough consensus that the article should be reworked in that way, then we need to rewrite the ] first, and then to rework the rest of the article to be consistent with and expand on the lede. If there is disagreement with that approach, then a ] will be needed to formalize the change in viewpoint, but I will want the RFC to provide a revised lede, rather than just a statement of principle. So we need to start work on rewriting of the ] if we agree that the article should describe the multiple viewpoints, of which the medical model is one.
::You have taken what they said out of context, they clearly say that they are referring to the conventional form of democracy, based on multiparty system and parliament. In the ''same'' document, the '']'', it says that they support an "''authoritarian democracy''".--] (]) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:The vast majority of descriptions of fascist ideology say it was anti-democratic, and ignore that in an essay attacking democracy, a Fascist said that fascism was democracy. The few scholars who have commented on the sentence have not given it a lot of attention and do not appear to agree on what it meant. Anthony Arblaster, for example, said, "Yet even Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by definining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'." (''Democracy'', p. 48) Arblaster's interpretation does not support the view that fascism was democratic or even claimed to be. We should not take an obscure, ambiguous quote and provide it with a weight and meaning not accepted in mainstream sources. ] (]) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::OK, so we are ''not'' here to discuss fascism, but you want help in resolving whether the article should contain a statement "fascism is opposed to democracy". Is that correct? Please answer but I have given one suggestion already and I'm hoping that another volunteer will comment and lead. ] (])
:::I really think an administrator has to review if TFD's claim is logically tenable. Just look at TFD's last claim posted here, it is completely illogical. He shows the Arblaster source that shows the statement by Gentile that fascism is "''organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy''" where the author claims it was disgenuine, and goes on to say "''Arblaster's interpretation does not support the view that fascism was democratic '''or even claimed to be'''''". But he '''did''' acknowledge that fascists ''claimed'' to be democratic, the quote by the Fascist theorist Gentile declaring it to be "''organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy''" the author happens to believe that it was disgenuine. Do you see the logical fallacy with TFD's argument that fascism didn't even claim to be democratic?--] (]) 14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I hope a volunteer will come along who will help you to formulate the problem in a way that will allow it to be resolved. But if you do want to discuss sources (as I suggested above), then I will be happy to facilitate that. ] (]) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Here is a source that describes fascism's ''claim'' to be democratic in detail: ''The civic foundations of fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870-1945'' by Dylan J. Riley.
::::::'''Here is a paraphrase of Riley's work from a Misplaced Pages article I wrote:''' In the fascist and quasi-fascist regimes that governed Italy, Romania, and Spain from the 1920s to the 1970s, authoritarian democracy was promoted as an alternative to liberal democracy, multi-party based democracy was dismantled and replaced by corporatist representation of state-sanctioned corporate groups that would unite people into interest groups to address the state that would act in the interest of the general will of the nation and thus exercise an orderly form of popular rule. {Riley, Pp. 4-5) Italian Fascists argued that authoritarian democracy is capable of representing the different interests of society that advise the state and the state acts in the interest of the nation.(Riley, Pp. 4.) In contrast, fascists denounced liberal democracy for not being a true democracy but in fact being un-democratic because from the fascist perspective, elections and parliaments are unable to represent the interests of the nation because it lumps together individuals who have little in common into geographical districts to vote for an array of parties to represent them that results in little unanimity in terms of interests, projects, or intentions, and that liberal democracy's multi-party elections merely serve as a means to legitimize elite rule without addressing the interests of the general will of the nation. (Riley, Pp. 4.)
:::::TFD has criticized this source in the past because Riley takes the unconventional stance of saying that although fascism was definately not ], fascism did claim to be democratic and could conceivably be considered an authoritarian democracy (outside of the conventional liberal democratic idealist view on what democracy is). Riley's source focuses particularly on the original fascism, ], it claimed to represent an "authoritarian democracy" and Riley notes that the basis of its claim to be democratic is through its ] whereby the Italian Fascists claimed that they upheld the ] of their nation through participation in corporatist sectoral organizations. Now TFD would be correct to say that Riley's opinion that fascism may have been democratic in practice is certainly a minority view, but Riley's description of fascism's ''claim'' to be democratic through appeals to public participation in the state and to the general will are important, and I believe are of interest to at least mention briefly the fascism article. Riley's source shows, like the other sources I have shown, that fascism did indeed ''claim'' to be democratic and sought to ''present itself'' as democratic.--] (]) 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::All the reviews of this book that you presented say that Riley's writings on fascism and democracy challenge existing views and you would need to show that discussion of his views had gained some sort of recognition. The article should reflect what is typically found in mainstream sources and we should not be including views that are universally ignored. Certainly we should not present them as facts. ] (]) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I knew that you would focus on Riley's view that fascism may be democratic in a sense, rather than acknowledging that he has noted fascism's claim to be democratic. I am saying that your statement "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" is inaccurate. Don't you get it TFD? I mean it is rattling my mind that you cannot acknowledge that fascists '''DID''' claim to be democratic, your statement "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" is factually false, and you know it.--] (]) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::R-41 please note: your personal attacks on TFD, both here and at Collect's talk page, e.g. and , are not really conducive to dispute resolution. ] (]) 21:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh great, you again, Writegeist. I told you to stay away from me. I said on Collect's page that I seriously think that TFD's comments have become irrational and I specifically said that I didn't mean it as an insult or a joke, I was serious. TFD has been shown evidence from fascists and a quote from the '']'' stating their claim that they supported democracy, so TFD's argument that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''" has been proven false, and he knows that it is false. The only possible reason you are aware about what I said to Collect is because you are ] either me or Collect. I remember you insulting a WQA volunteer whom you then as another WQA volunteer were '''''supposed''''' to cooperate with. You patronizingly told the volunteer to get a desk job, amid me asking for assistance for other users there for help in resolve a dispute between two other users. That WQA volunteer, not me, reported you for your personal attack and uncivil behaviour. Also you have repeatedly talked about Collect and me on your talk page after discussions with both of us had ended, and you regularly talked about us in a condescending manner to other users. You are here to stir up crap because you have a grudge against me for calling you out for acting like a jerk to that WQA volunteer. I will not speak to you on anything here, nor listen to you Writegeist, because I regard your intentions here, as hostile and vindictive, you are involved here to carry out your personal vendetta against me and you clearly have been ] either Collect or me, to be aware of that one statement that I made to Collect.--] (]) 22:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Huh? This noticeboard is for dispute resolution, not dispute escalation. By all means raise your personal issues at my talk page. Not here. ] (]) 00:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Your prior post imdicates ''blatant stalking'' at best. I suggest you redact your posts which are not going to aid in any resolution at all. ] (]) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: the only Highbeam source for a review of Riley's work is at and quite contrary to TFDs assertion about every review - does ''not'' disparage Riley at all.
::''Riley (sociology, U. of California at Berkeley) explains how this came to be by arguing that civil society facilitated the emergence of fascism in these countries because it preceded the establishment of strong political organizations among both dominant classes and nonelites. Because of this lack of hegemonic politics, the democratic demands of voluntary associations "assumed a paradoxically antiliberal and authoritarian form: a technocratic rejection of politics as such," which created a general crisis of politics that provided space for the growth of fascist movements. ''
Clearly does not support TFDs blanket assertion about reviews.
Other reviews include ''This brilliant comparative study of the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Romania brings Tocqueville and Gramsci into a novel and surprising conversation. It will change the way you think about civil society, fascism, and democracy.''(William Sewell, the University of Chicago 2011), ''Make no mistake, this is much more than comparative fascisms. Dylan Riley not only rethinks and meshes the legacies of Tocqueville, Arendt and Gramsci; he sobers us up to the actual history of civil society and democratization in continental Europe. This theoretical lesson seems still gravely relevant elsewhere in the world today.'' (Georgi Derluguian, author of Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the Caucasus: A World-Systems Biography 2010)
etc. (Amazon.com listing of 9 reviews - none of which is what TFD implies all reviews are) When asserting that all reviews are antithetical to a book, it helps if one is actually dealing with facts. ] (]) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
:Collect, you should be aware that dustjackets of books tend to copy the most complimentary paragraphs of reviews and may not present a proper summary.
:], who is one of the world's foremost experts on fascism, and quoted by R-41 dozens of times, for example, wrote, "The most controversial aspect will be its definition of Fascism, which he calls an 'authoritarian democracy', using the latter term in a distinctive manner that is not as clearly defined as it might be....The thrust of his argument is that democracy is a broader concept and practice than the classic liberal democracy of the West....It is doubtful that this definition will gain much acceptance." Payne praises the book for other aspects.
:Riley has presented a new interpretation of fascism and democracy which may or may not gain notice, but so far has not. Since we are not a crystal ball, his views are safely ignored.
:] (]) 08:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
:::You present a '''single''' source for your position - where you claimed that virtually every source agrees with what you know to be the truth. I presented a substantial number of reviews (not "dust jacket blurbs" as you term them) which '''directly contradict your assertions'''. Examples which contradict an assertion disprove it. You are in DEADHORSE territory now. Cheers. ] (]) 11:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
::It seems to me that Riley is potentially RS for the article. So are his academic reviewers. If you want a further opinion on this go to RSN with a brief question and avoid commenting until some uninvolved editors have had their say. But if you can all agree on this general principle then there is a lot to be worked out about what is best taken from Riley, how to balance it etc. ] (]) 08:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
:::It is not a matter of rs, but a matter of weight. what weight do we provide views that have not yet gained acceptance, especially when one of the most noted experts says that they are unlikely to gain any acceptance? ] (]) 08:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
::::You saw above that I suggested a procedure in two steps. It seems that this is now moving to the second step, what may be used from Riley without attribution or comment, what can be used and balanced, and what shouldn't be used at all. Does everyone involved have access to the whole book? Has everyone read it in its entirety? ] (]) 09:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::No one questions whether the book is a reliable source, only whether A the opinions presented in the book support R-41's edits and B whether the opinions expressed in the book have gained any acceptance. I have read a substantial portion of the book (what was available on Google books). But our role is not to evaluate original ideas but to report what sources say about them. Of course R-41 has not read this book, he formed an opinion and searched for sources that appeared to support his views. He does not care whether a books was written by Gentile the Fascist or Gentile the fascism scholar. He presents sources from decades ago. I conscientiously read all these sources and when I explain what is wrong with them, R-41 uses Google to find another source he has obviously not read. That is the wrong approach - do not assume something and look for sources, identify sources and reflect what they say. ] (]) 01:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


So I will restate my first question, which is whether our objective is to revise the perspective of the article to describe multiple viewpoints. Please at least answer yes or no. If you answer no, please state what you think we should be doing to improve the article (or to leave it alone).
Riley's book was published by Johns Hopkins, prima facie a reliable source. He has received multiple awards, including the Seymour Lipset Award. .


If we have at least rough consensus that the end objective is to improve the article by describing other views of autism besides the medical model, then we will proceed to rewrite first the lede and then the body.
: ''The book succeeds in providing an explanation of the origins and varieties of fascism that is both theoretically powerful and empirically accurate.'' (Max Whyte, University of Chicago in ''Chicago Journals'')


A second question has to do with a comment that efforts to neutralize the wording of parts of the article (to make the autism-neutral) have been reverted. If so, who did the reverting? I would like to invite any reverting editors to participate in this discussion.
: DA Messenger in ''American Historical Review'' says ''Dylan Riley, a sociologist, examines the understudied role of civil society in fascism's rise in Italy, Spain, and Romania''


Are there any other questions?
: is also far more than a "blurb" In short the book has gotten ''many'' academic reviews, and has been well-received. It is from a major academic publisher, and the use of one person asserting that "no one accepts it" is here shown to be ludicrous and tendentious to the extreme at this point. Googlescholar, which I generally found not to be utile except in really blatant cases, here shows some value - with the book title getting nearly two thousand hits! So let us look at Payne and what he ''actually wrote'' (noting that he appears to be in the minority here if we believe TFDs assertions!) - Payne objects on the grounds that the use of "authoritarian democracy" as a term "''would nominally include many forms of authoritarianism on the one hand, while failing to distinguish Fascism from Communism on the other.''" Payne does not say that Riley is wrong - just that Payne would prefer a ''narrower'' definition, of all things, in his review, and not that he finds Riley to be wrong. In short - likely misuse by excerptation of a review which does not ''actually'' say what TFD has asserted it says. Cheers. ] (]) 11:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
] (]) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Collect, you need to distinguish between facts and opinions. No one questions where Riley got his facts right, or even if he has argued his case cogently. The issue is whether his opinions about fascism and democracy have gained acceptance. As the reviews show, they have not. ] (]) 17:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
:::You at first averred that no one gave Riley a favourable review, then that no one "supported" Riley, then that the reviews were mere "blurbs" now you are reduced to arguing that the reviews ''''which were almost totally favourable''' somehow ''still'' do not show that Riley has any "acceptance" per what you "know" to be the "truth." Too many steps involved TFD for me to take your arguments seriously. Cheers. ] (]) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Collect, before jumping in, could you please read the discussions. You appear to have no understanding of the topic, the matter under discussion or the sources presented and your comments do not help to bring the discussion forward. I did not for example say that "no one gave Riley a favourable review" and your misrepresentation of what I said is offensive to me and a waste of eveyone's time, including your own. Can you explain what your point is about the subject of discussion or are you just arguing for the point of arguing? PS - could you please stop using terms like "averred" - it does not sound educated, merely someone trying to sound educated. ] (]) 02:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Following your rationales step-by-step shows your position for what it is, and I need not list all the academic reviews, academic scholarly citations etc. any more than I have thus far. And all you are reduced to is saying you dislike the English word "averred"? Really? That is what this board is for - that "averred" is disliked by you? Cheers. Will someone hat TFD's off-the-wall commentary - I do not think having it here does him any great favours at all. ] (]) 12:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
To get back on topic, as I said I think TFD is ignoring that Riley is acknowledging the fact that fascists claimed be democratic. I actually agree with TFD in that I disagree with Riley that fascism was ''in practice'' democratic - the two prominent fascist regimes were led by narcissistic individuals, Mussolini and Hitler, who sought to make sure that no one could challenge their vision of what Italy and Germany should become. But that is just my personal review of Riley's view. That being said, I will summarize my points by saying that TFD's argument based on this statement: "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''", is inconsistent with this Italian Fascist declaration that fascism involves an "'''''organized, centralized authoritarian democracy'''''" --] (]) 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:Have you read Riley's book in full? ] (]) 20:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
::I have read significant portions of it on Google Books, much of it is shown, though there are sections that are not shown because it is a preview of the book. Nevertheless the summary of what the book is arguing is described on pages 10 and 11 in particular. Riley's work is not some lunatic fringe work, it applies methodology and uses political analysis - particularly Tocquevillian analysis of democracy and civil society. Riley says the problem is that there is a common POV in the Western world to associate liberalism (as in liberal political culture) with democracy and automatically associate authoritarianism with antidemocracy (see page 11 of Riley), he says that this view is biased and illogical.--] (]) 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
:::If you're arguing to include material based on a source, you really have to have read all of it. We can all see that this is very serious academic research. The question now is which bits of Riley's arguments should be used in the article, and if they need balancing. I haven't read the book myself by the way, but I will if it helps to move this dispute forward. It looks extremely interesting. But without reading it all, and the reviews, we are not in a position to say which bits we can use, and how. Otherwise, we are working in the wrong direction, wanting to make a point and finding a reference for the point, as opposed to identifying a good source and working out what to take from it. I hope that point is well taken. By the way, you don't actually have anyone formally facilitating on this. I said I would only comment on sources, and I may well be reaching the limit of my competence in resolving your case. ] (]) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Riley's work is a serious discourse that has received attention from the scholarly community. We need to have references that are serious in examining common claims made about fascism. Riley challenges claims that fascism is necessarily the opposite of democracy simply because it is authoritarian. On page 2, he says his claim very clearly: "''fascism, far from being the opposite of democracy, was a twisted and distorted form of democratization, that, paradoxically, embraced authoritarian means''", see here: . I believe that the combination of evidence that fascists claimed to be democratic alongside claims by the majority of scholars that it was undemocratic and a minority of scholars that it was a non-liberal form of democracy could be said in the following way: "''Fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice, although fascists themselves claimed to be democratic and there are a minority of scholars who view fascism as supporting a variant of democracy''". I would welcome an invitation through proper channels of a ] on political concepts and systems such as ] and ] to assist you and other moderators and observers here, in the discussion.--] (]) 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Not sure that an expert is what's needed. I'm well enough read in 20th century European history to understand the points at issue. You could probably do with someone who edits in completely different areas, to stand back and apply conflict resolution techniques. ] (]) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think is up to the editor asking to add information to provide sources, and I have not asked for any additions. The type of source we should use I believe is an article on fascist ideology or an introduction or introductory chapter to a book on fascist ideology that outlines the major issues, how various scholars have addressed them and the degree of acceptance of these views. ] (]) 07:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The user ] who has since been indefinately blocked from Misplaced Pages and admitted to being a sockpuppet of the banned ], said that the article should say that "fascism opposes democracy", and you TFD supported such a statement. So you are advocating a claim that "fascism opposes democracy", that is a major overarching claim with no conditions, you need evidence to confirm that fascism as an ideology "'''opposes'''" democracy as a whole, and not just ].--] (]) 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I am not advocating including any claim, I am merely oposing the inclusion of your claim. ] (]) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


===Fourth statements by editors (Autism)===
Volunteer Comment: I would like to offer some advice, from a logical standpoint. I have no in-depth knowledge of any of the "claims" made here. As stated in ] page, "Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." I believe ] claim could also fall under an "exceptional claim." If there is verifiable proof that fascists have claimed fascism to be similar or variant of democracy, it should be included in the article. If it is also the minority opinion, it should be stated as such. I believe that ] has provided sources to back up his claim, and if such sources are verifiable and acceptable under WP policy, he has met the conditions necessary for inclusion. I also think it would help to have a clear, '''simple''' statement as to why ] feels the claim in question should not be included, if worded properly. Sources to support your statement would be very useful as well. Arguments over the viewpoint of any author are '''not''' necessary. If the statement was made, it deserves to be included. If it is widely viewed as incorrect, it should be noted. ] (]) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, revising the article to include information about {{tq|autism as a human condition or a neurotype}}, supported by citations to the best ], will improve the article. Here is a quote from a reliable source that highlights this issue:
:Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) which is associated with alterations in structures and mechanisms underlying behavior, has traditionally been viewed as a harmful condition. However, there is a contrary position, which may be particularly relevant to milder cases of ASD. In this view, the positive attributes associated with ASD (e.g. high levels of creativity and mathematical ability) are emphasized and neurodiversity is celebrated, shifting the onus onto neuro-typical society to accommodate neuro-atypical persons. However, despite the growing prevalence of persons with ASD who choose to see themselves as situated on a spectrum of normal variation, there are many individuals and families who seek health interventions or advocate for more scientific research to cure or prevent ASD. These disagreements are perhaps indicative of the heterogeneous and dimensional nature of both ASD and its impact; in severe cases care rather than accommodation is required. Thus, judgments about whether or not an entity should be included in the nosology require careful assessment of the extent to which social accommodation is possible. <small></small> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;"> - ] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::<small>''Note'': In my first sentence (above), I changed the hyperlink destination for ''reliable sources'' from ] to ] because I agree with ] (below) that, as WP:MEDRS itself indicates in the first paragraph, biomedical information in any article should comply with WP:MEDRS, and general information in medical articles should comply with WP:RS. - <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
* My answers:
** Question 1: Yes, I think that this (medical vs non-medical POVs) is the main dispute. However, because ], I suggest that it would be more appropriate to re-write the body first.
** Question 2: For recent reverts, you might look at these: I believe that everyone involved is either already here or knows this is happening. ] (]) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:The claim is not "exceptional" at all. It is the refusal to accept what is a current and accepted reliable source which is now "exceptional" as is evident to anyone reading the colloquy thereon. Cheers. ] (]) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for the summary and helpful questions.
:Acronin3. I will recap for you. Since articles and introductions and introductory books about fascism ignore the reference to "authoritarian democracy", it is so insignificant that it should be ignored per ]. Bear in mind that the claim fascists supported democracy is based on an interpretation of a single sentence in a 1923 article by Mussolini attacking democracy. Otherwise he made no statements whatsoever saying that he supported democracy and the sentence is almost entirely ignored except in such lengthy writings such as the 3000 page dictionary of fascism, but even then is given little prominence. The few scholars who have discussed the sentence are not necessarily convinced that it is a genuine statement. It is in any case the wrong approach, we are supposed to reflect what the experts think not look for sources to add what we happen to believe. ] (]) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::Would the involved editors please state (very briefly indeed) which statements in the article are at issue. The word "democracy" appears 23 times and I don't think all of those are problematic. The phrase "liberal democracy" also appears many times, and is overlinked. Someone could sort that, and perhaps also check that the qualifier is used in the source, so that sources aren't misrepresented. ] (]) 07:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::"Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy." While the first source does not say that fascists "deny that they are entirely against democracy", it was apparently chosen because it says that fascists oppose ''liberal'' democracy, while most sources merely say that they oppose democracy. Note that the book is about ], not fascism. The second source says, "However, the same article suggests that there is a way that the term "democracy" can be understood which is compatible with Fascism--namely, when it is understood as "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy"". Notice that there is no mention of this essay in the book's 26 page introduction.(pp.1-26) ] (]) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Fascists repeatedly claimed to be democratic. The issue about whether they ''were'' in practice is separate from the fact that they ''claimed'' to be democratic. I have shown TFD, the example from the '']'' that says "organized, centralized authoritarian democracy", and numerous other examples of fascists declaring support for a form of democracy. I chose the first source by Rydgren because it describes precisely what fascism ideologically opposed in liberal democracy - its ideal of rule through quantity rather than rule through quality. WP:WEIGHT does not warrant exclusion of material analyzed by scholars simply because a quote is mentioned once in a book - quotes are typically only mentioned once in a book, nor does it warrant acceptance of TFD's clearly factually incorrect claim that "''Fascism was not democratic '''even in theory'''''". '''I propose that the following compromise''' to resolve this by addressing the different claims and the different weights of scholarly opinion: "'''Fascism is widely regarded by scholars to be undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice. Fascism denounces liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality. However fascists have claimed to be democratic and a minority of scholars regard fascism as supporting a form of democracy.''". This could be placed in the main body of the article and the existing sentence referring to fascism's relations with democracy in the intro could be removed.--] (]) 21:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::thanks, both, for clarifying. And for your suggested text, R-41. Your second sentence is ungrammatical . If you could rephrase, then others can comment on whether this is an acceptable compromise. It does seem better to take this from the lead into the main body. Did you still want to consider how to use Riley? ] (]) 22:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::I have fixed the sentence for my latest proposal above. To Itsmejudith, as to your inquiry on how Riley's work should be used here, Riley should be mentioned as being amongst a minority of scholars who view fascism as supporting a form of democracy, after saying that most scholars view fascism as undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice - that way ] is upheld, and the different perspectives are shown.--] (]) 23:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Just so other users here don't get lost in all the conversation I will restate my latest compromise proposal here: "'Fascism is widely regarded by scholars to be undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice. Fascism denounces liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality. However fascists have claimed to be democratic and a minority of scholars regard fascism as supporting a form of democracy.". This will be put in the main body of the article, and the current sentence mentioning fascism's relation with democracy will be removed from the intro.--] (]) 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Yes, the main issue is as you described; I'm not sure what determines a 'rough consensus' exactly, though. We have many people making the case for it, with one extremely strident dissent from that potential consensus; and one or two other editors broadly agreeing with him, without getting very much involved. This dispute, in a broad sense, predates the six months or so of his active involvement, though - a look through the ] (and, for completeness, ]) will show that closely related arguments have been cropping up regularly since, I suspect, the start.
== Nuclear fuel cycle ==


One recurring theme has been the over-application (from my perspective, at least) of ]. The guideline itself states that "] requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not" - but the boundaries of what does and does not fall under that rubric are not always clear. In this case, we have to ask whether the experiences and perspectives of autistic people ourselves are 'general information' or whether they are, perhaps automatically "Attributes of a disease or condition". There are likely to be grey areas like meltdown and burnout, where it is not necessarily clear which kinds of reliable sources we can lean on.
{{DR case status|open}}
{{drn filing editor|Jpritikin|08:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 08:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Nuclear fuel cycle}}


Whatamidoing has a point about the lead vs the entire article; it is traditional for the lead to follow the lead of the article as a whole, as it were. However, to the extent that we are talking about language use, perhaps it makes sense to make the lead more balanced even before we fix the whole of the rest of the article - which is an absolutely huge job, because the article is extremely overlong, and dreadful on multiple levels: repetitious, poorly structured, self-contradictory, out-of-date, with a series of gaping holes, ''and'' overwhelmingly written in a way that takes a pathologising perspective for granted. My impression is that it is so poorly maintained largely because disputes along these lines have consumed so much of the energy that could otherwise have gone into improving the article.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


In case it's of interest, I ran a survey a couple of months to gather opinions and impressions of the entry (and Misplaced Pages's autism coverage more broadly) - I wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was! You can , but the standout result is that out of 31 respondents who'd seen it and formed an opinion, the mean rating for the question 'How well does the main Autism entry reflect your own experiences and understanding of autism?' was 3.25 out of 10.
]


Regarding your question about reversions, , often with very misleading edit summaries (e.g. compare with ; I am aware that this process is supposed to steer clear of conduct issues, but as ] discusses, it can be hard to keep them separate). I am not aware of much other reverting that has happened lately.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


--] (]) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:* {{user|NPguy}}
:* {{user|Jpritikin}}
:
NPguy never tried to improve my summary. He only reverts it in total. I have repeatedly revised to try to meet his objections.


:No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. ] (]) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
::<small>(I believe that shows 88 edits, not 88 reverts.)</small> ] (]) 12:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Replying here to correct egregiously misleading statements about me. Several other editors, other than myself, have extensively reverted edits on the article, as has the above poster, but this context has been omitted. Furthermore, the list of reversions cited are also implicated in different topics, not just the ones in this mediation, making the implication of "one editor" reverting things a generalised and selective representation of the edit history on the article. ] (]) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::For the moderator my lie was here:{{diff2|1258336094}}{{diff2|1258372372}} Sorry this last one was rude:{{diff2|1258372372}} but I don't undo too much. Anyway lets not talk about each other too much because the moderator said "Comment on content, not contributors". ] (]) 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No problem, I agree we should focus on commenting on the content, i was only responding to the implied misconduct accusations about me as I feel that these have the potential to undermine a constructive mediation. ] (]) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I see you are replying to me directly. I think this is specifically what ] is about, but as long as we're doing this: based on searching the edit history, it looks like there have been a total of 35 reversions over the last six months, 29 of which (83%) were by you, while around half of the remainder were reversions ''of'' your reversions.
::Perhaps a more thorough systematic search would turn up slightly different results; perhaps I have missed something; but I do not think that any part of my comment above is 'egregiously misleading'.
::The moderator specifically asked about reversions, which is why I made a stab at quantifying them. ] (]) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that your dissection of the problem is entirely accurate. Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to treat medical conditions have been used to assert that anything not adhering strictly to these guidelines is either inadmissible, or be treated as subordinate, or more extremely as 'fringe'. Autism is classed as a neurodevelopmental condition that is amenable to clinical diagnosis, but it also has social, communication and identity aspects that most medical conditions do not possess. As an example, the medical model highlights deficits in communication, but research has shown that communication between autistics is just as accurate as communication between allistics, problems exist only when autistics try to communicate with allistics. This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles? To my mind there are two current viewpoints concerning autism, both having reputable supporting literature, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both are useful methods of describing autism, they even overlap to some extent, both have validity and both should be treated in a similarly full, dispassionate and encyclopaedic way on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:"autistics try to communicate with allistics" is the ], you should of linked that because I don't think I'm allowed to edit your comment. You said "This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles?" this indicates a difference because I like talking to autistic people a little bit better or at least I seem to make less mistakes (but non-autistic familiy members (or close people) always understand you because they know you well). autistic people say the neurotypical's are ] (they are just very ]) the neurotypical's think we are puzzling, so they said we are disorded. We aren't but ] aren't gonna change the name. If we were all autistic then no one would be "disorded" right? but that's off topic. ] (]) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes.


I think that a move away from introducing autism as it is now in the article, would be beneficial. At present, we effectively have, Autism is ... then the reader is immediately launched into verbatim or edited definitions from diagnostic manuals, eventually followed by some mention of non-medicalised aspects, as a sort of aside. This gives the medical model of autism a rather erroneous place as THE defining model. The introduction should start with content that is not weighted in one direction, that all can agree on. I would see this as an expansion of something along these lines: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental lifelong condition characterised by differences in brain architecture and function. It has been linked to genetic and environmental factors and is defined by a range of behavioural, communication and sensory features. These features can vary widely between autistic individuals, hence autism is called a spectrum condition". "Two differing interpretations of autism are currently recognised, the medical model and the neurodiversity model." Following some similar sort of opening, both models can be described, beginning with the medical model, where the material from the diagnostic manuals can go, with the neurodiversity material following. Most of the aspects in the body of the text can follow roughly the same structure. ] (]) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Nuclear fuel cycle<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


===Fifth statement by moderator (Autism)===
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
Thank you for your responses. I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by ].
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


I would like to be able to close out the moderated discussion and resume normal editing to resume in no more than two to four months. I know that it may take longer than this to finish rewriting the article, but I would like to be able to step back from the rewrite in less than six months.
I have discussed this issue on the talk page.


I am aware that it is the recommended usual practice that ]. I think that this is a special case in which a rewriting of the lede may simplify rewriting the body. If there is opposition to the change in viewpoint, then revisions to the sections of the body may be reverted as inconsistent with the lede, which will require multiple RFCs to formalize the change in emphasis. It is true that if the lede is rewritten first, it may then be later necessary to do a second rewrite to be consistent with the revised body, but I would like to get the change in viewpoint established earlier, rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. If anyone knows of a way to formalize the change in viewpoint other than by changing the lede, I am willing to consider it. I don't like the idea of an abstract RFC saying to change the emphasis of the article. I am ready to consider a coordinated approach to rewriting the body first, but I would like first to see a description as a coordinated approach. I am aware that we may need to revise the lede twice, once at the beginning and once at the end. I just don't see a way to get the rewriting of the body on a consistent basis without first rewriting the lede the first time.
* ''How do you think we can help?''


I will restate the rule of ]. When ] is discussed as a medical condition, sources must satisfy the standard of ]. When ] is discussed as a human condition, or in a cultural context, sources must satisfy the general standard of ]. In particular, material that is sourced to sources meeting the general standard of reliability but not the medical standard of reliability should not be rejected unless the context is medical or psychiatric.
Not sure


Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion after responding to my questions. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion.
] (]) 08:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Are there any other questions?
===Nuclear fuel cycle discussion===
] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>


:72 hours have not passed per the rules since your last statement, I'm still in the process of writing a response. There are substantial issues with the arguments for the proposed lede changes which have remained unaddressed. These include the lack of reliable sources opposing the global scientific consensus, and that the consensus is demonstrably not isolated to a medical context, and so the medical interpretation of the evidence is a gross misrepresentation for basis to rewrite the lede. May I elaborate on these issues in a statement without this DRN prematurely concluding and normative editing resuming? I did make a request in a prior reply if I can do this, but I didn't receive any response. Thank you. ] (]) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I'm afraid that I agree with NPguy on this one, point by point, in his comments at the article talk page, including the non-usability of the Caldicott Twitter post currently included in the article. A source which appears to be reliable and which says exactly what you are trying to say can, however, be found and it appears there are any number more which can be found through . Regards, ] (]) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
:Two quick questions:
:1. Would it be appropriate to post a notification of this discussion/process on ]?
:2. Would it be appropriate to reinstate the <nowiki>{{unbalanced}}</nowiki> tag on the ] page while this work is ongoing? We seem to have something close to a consensus that it is indeed unbalanced. ] (]) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement 5.1 by moderator (Autism)====
:Finally a constructive suggestion. That looks like a great book to cite. Thank you. ] (]) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear about at least one aspect of my approach to the ] rewrite. After the draft revision of the ] is developed, I recognize that there may be disagreement with it. If there are disagreements with it, there will be a ] to obtain community input and establish community ]. While the RFC is in progress, other discussion of the lede will be on hold, although there can be discussion of edits to the sections of the body of the article. So this DRN will not conclude prematurely. I hope that this is clear. A rewrite of the lede will be a draft rewrite, to be followed by an RFC, which will accept it or reject it. This will give editors who agree with the draft and disagree with the draft rewrite thirty days to present their cases to the community. Any decisions as important as changing the lede will not be made by local consensus here but by the community. Are there any further questions? ] (]) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:I have residual concerns. First, from my understanding, the rules state that we have 3 days to make a statement responding to the moderator's statement. However, just one day after, you issued statement 5.0 in which you basically concluded that there is agreement to move the article away from a "medical position". This is not a fair assessment as I was in the midst of writing my statement to demonstrate how that assertion is highly inaccurate as well as provide further countering evidence. As such, there is no such agreement, making it as well as support for the medical interpretation of the evidence, prematurely concluded. Additionally, in my initial statement I cited the citations demonstrating the global scientific consensus and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies on its importance, which have not been acknowledged in any responding statements as of yet. Please may you redact these conclusions, or alter them accordingly, based on considering my newest statement?
<small>If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 16, 2012 at 13:47 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be resolved. — ] (]) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
:Second, we initiated this DRN process to seek an assessment from a neutral moderator because discussions on the talk page have been marred by persistent misrepresentation of arguments and citations, among other issues. Does "community consensus" in this context refers solely or primarily to the participants in this DRN from the article talk page? Without relying on external mediators, this risks replicating the same issues in the talk page. We would just be reiterating the same points already made in the talk page to the same users.


:And I seem to be the only active participant for maintaining the current general framing of ASD in the article. Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN. I hope you can understand my concerns that this would ultimately skew any perceived consensus. ] (]) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries ==


===Fifth statements by editors (Autism)===
{{DR case status|open}}
I like your proposed plan and your rationale, i.e., to start with a new lede, that will likely require revision down the road, but that will serve as a framework for revising the body of the article. I also appreciate your clear, coherent statement about reliable sources. Thank you for your hard work on this. -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{drn filing editor|CyberGhostface|19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|The Zombie Diaries}}
* {{pagelinks|World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries}}


Your proposal makes sense to me, and I am quite grateful for your willingness to devote such a long period of time to moderating the discussion so that headway occurs in improving the article. As I said earlier, I can only contribute in limited ways here, but I will continue to read the exchanges, and will contribute when I think I can be helpful. ] (]) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


I also support your proposal, and (just to be clear) your decision to use Rule G. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hopeful that we can make progress a lot faster once we have overcome some of the roadblocks preventing edits to date.
There's been a non-stop edit war going on at these two articles between ] and various IPs (who may or may not be related) regarding the two films in question. Basically it comes down to the budget of one film and how wide the release was for another. Taking a look at the history pages it's non-stop "Undid revision by so and so."


Dmitriy's concern about being the only neurodiversity-opposing participant in this process is understandable - I did try to include at least two others when I initiated this, but they have not joined. This is one reason I suggested notifying ]; historically, other editors broadly sharing his outlook have been much more involved. It might be best if he were not the only participant representing the pro-pathologisation side of this discussion, given our goal is presumably to produce an article which is acceptable to people with a range of personal views on these subjects.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
--] (]) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


:* {{user|Bradswanson2010}}
:* {{user|217.33.166.226}}
:* {{user|81.105.0.14}}
:
I'm going to guess that the IPs might belong to the same organization/person and may be involved with the films in question.


===Sixth statement by moderator (Autism)===
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
I will again restate, and maybe clarify, about ]. Any contested changes to the article will be made only by community consensus, which is obtained by an RFC, which runs for thirty days and is formally closed by an uninvolved editor. A majority of the editors in this DRN is only a local consensus and will not change the article substantively.


I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article. I think that revision of the lede should precede the revision of the sections of the body of the article, but am ready to consider a plan for a coordinated effort to rewrite the sections of the body first. Editors who want to leave the article more or less as it is may either provide a statement supporting their view, or nothing.
Yes.
] (]) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


===Sixth statement by editors (Autism)===
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>
In answering the moderator's question, I see two main issues implicated in the dispute. First is, whether - or the extent to which - ASD should be framed in the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and risks/causes. The second issue regards compliance with due weight based on the sources.


'''Addressing the First Issue'''
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


Due weight and neutrality on Misplaced Pages do not indicate that two contrasting viewpoints ought to be presented equally or be of comparable influence in the terminology used in articles. The reliable sources substantiating positions need to be weighed in based on their reputability and the consensus of them in the field. For further details, see Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:scientific_consensus.
I left ] on Bradswanson2010's page as well as ] on the film Wikiproject.


Around the world, the developers of scientific guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews, etc. unanimously conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels (for references, see ]). Additionally, some of these references are essentially developed by a unification of scientists. For example, the Misplaced Pages article concludes that ASD in the ICD-11 was "produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".
* ''How do you think we can help?''


The idea that this global scientific consensus is localised to the context of medicine is highly inaccurate. The references pertain to a wide array of subfields and contexts related to ASD, clearly substantiating a general scientific consensus for the validity and application of the terminology - not just in a medical context. For a list of quotes documenting this, see ].
I suppose an experienced editor can take a look at the two pages and come to a conclusion as to what direction should be taken.


In fact, many of the references are not medically based at all, with some such as the international guidelines from ESCAP concluding that no medicines exist to reduce the core symptoms of ASD, and as such, is irrelevant to the primary purposes of the guideline and thus gets a minor mention. Another example to demonstrate, are the standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. The 23rd citation in the Misplaced Pages article (Nelson, 2020) also concludes "the fact that autism is a disorder does not entail that medicalization is the only course".
] (]) 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Addressing the Second Issue'''
===The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
My immediate thought when looking at this case was, "let me check the article talk pages." I saw no comments on the talk pages, and it appears that '''none of the editors involved have communicated with each other''' outside of edit summaries. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Because I think our first step is simply for said editors to "sit down" and talk about it - not fight about it, please note, but just communicate. If, after this, nothing comes out of it, we can move on to our next steps in this - potentially at ] or something of the like. '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


The references given to support the opposing perspective are insufficient relative to the scientific consensus. If we exclude the blog post citations (because they are considered unreliable according to Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources), one editor has provided the following sources per their edit to alter the third lede paragraph:
Yes, both {{user|217.33.166.226}} and {{user|81.105.0.14}} are makers of the films in question and are attempting to hide the low budget of the first and the fact that the release of the second was limited to only three cinemas in the UK. The budget of £8,100 is widely known, referenced frequently online and has even been verified in the page discussion thread by Michael Bartlett - one of the directors. For the makers to now attempt to edit the page to try to present their films in the best light is not representative of the truth - that being that The Zombie Diaries budget was £8,100 and that the The World of The Dead was released at 3 UK cinemas for 3 days before the DVD release. Bradswanson2010


A link to A PDF stored on thedigitalcommons.com, apparently authored by Tom Shakespear. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal, and has a single author.
Bradswanson2010 is completely incorrect in a number of his assumptions. There is no evidence that the film World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries was screened at only 3 cinemas. Bradswanson2010 has provided a dead link as evidence. It was a limited release before the dvd release, but to state 3 screens without evidence cannot be accepted as true. Also, the evidence to support the budget of £8,100 for The Zombie Diaries is based upon posts on messageboards, blogs and not from any official source. The imdb budget entry states £500,000! I don't believe this is correct either, however it demonstrates that it is more accurate not to state the budget, as it is clearly unknown at this present time. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD.
Kevin/Michael, as you know, filmmakers inflate their budgets on imdb, much the same as your two alter info on here to make your films appear more successful than they actually were. The £8,100 budget is consistent across all the references and a widely known figure. You also know that your film was released at 3 cinemas for 3 days before the films release on DVD complete with spectacularly misleading cover. Bradswanson2010. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


In a prior discussion, which I cannot locate as it appears to have been archived or deleted, they have also cited a text-book and other advocacy papers or trade books which advocated against framing ASD as a neurodevelopmental disorder.
Clear case of edit warring. On ] the budget isn't even stated so why are you making an issue?] (]) 06:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Relying on these is problematic for several reasons. First, as shown in ], other peer-reviewed reports and textbooks disagree with the above articles. Thus, they cannot be selectively relied upon for the general framing of ASD in the lede. Second, these sources are advocating for something that is not currently established and as such, cannot overturn the scientific consensus classification of ASD as it stands currently. Third, by taking due weight and source reliability into account, the references do not overturn the global scientific consensus. This is because they are not even close to the source reliability of the standardised diagnostic criteria, international and national guidelines, and scientific consensus statements, which indicate otherwise.
Based on the evidence, it cannot be certain what the budget for Zombie Diaries was, nor the number of screenings World of the Dead had. Based upon that, they should not be referenced on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''Conclusion'''
The evidence that the budget to The Zombie Diaries is £8,100 is referenced five times. Based on what you say, there is no actual evidence that The World of the Dead was released in any cinemas. Bradswanson2010. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In conclusion, the lede should continue to reflect the global scientific consensus that recognises ASD as a valid disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying levels of severity, as required by Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. The medical interpretation of the consensus is flawed and lacks careful consideration. Thus, rewriting the lede to exclude the terminology except in medical contexts should not be admissible.] (]) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:Quick reply to clarify two things. I have not elaborated on the specific issues with the changes proposed by an editor on the third lede paragraph because I don't think this is (at least, as of yet) a main matter in the dispute, so I didn't want to include it and make my statement overly lengthy. I also apologise if I have not comprehensively covered the refs that have been given to support the Neurodiversity Movement's perspective; some have been scattered across talk discussions, and so I cited the ones used in article edits and the main ones I recall cited in discussions. In either case, the points about their general invalidity would still stand. ] (]) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright - thank you all for responding. 1st note, please remember to always sign your comments with 4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) - it makes it easier to see who's who and what's what. '''Now''' - as Curb Chain said, this really seems like just a huge edit war. This may be a case for ] - as I don't think you two(three) are agreeing on anything over this medium. Rather, you're letting this stretch out in a great number of reverts. I looked at the references, and it appears that Bradswanson2010 ''is'' correct - the references that are not dead links '''do''' say that the budget is £8,100. However, as 81.105.0.14 will not accept this, and as '''both''' of you are in the wrong for ]ing... I recommend that, if you two can not come to a consensus, this dispute be brought to the ]. Another final note to CurbChain - on ], it appears the debate is regarding the number of screenings. '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 12:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


{{Divider line}}
I believe the point on the dead links was to do with the '3 cinema screenings' reference. As it has been agreed that is not reliable as it is a dead link, it should remain as 'limited' as it is common knowledge the film released a very minor theatrical run. Regarding the budget, the links provided by BradSwanson2010 are blog sites and not from any official source. So it is unreliable information. If you notice Bradswanson2010's recent amendment to World of the Dead to do with misleading cover art, it is clear he has an agenda to try and stoke up anything that tries to paint the film-makers and the film in a bad light. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Here is a first stab at a lead. I have combined bits from various versions, and rewritten some parts. I have leaned towards ''neutral'' language rather than bifurcating from the start; I think this allows a much more concise treatment, without eliding the major differences of opinion.
As it is now appears evident that you two can not come to a consensus, I believe that this dispute should be brought to the ] - I really don't have any other suggestions at this point, as it appears that you both are acting hostile-ly towards each other and it is not as much a content dispute as a personal battle between you. Thanks, and please let me know- '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 14:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Note that in many ways this is a ''compromise'' lead; there is language that I am not entirely comfortable with, because it still foregrounds a ] perspective, this being the dominant lens still used by wider society as well as most relevant professionals. The direction of travel of both of those has been strongly towards ] in recent years; it is likely that in another few years, anything based on current discourse and research will need updating to reflect this ongoing progress.
217.33.166.226/Michael/Kevin, you cite "common knowledge" for stating the film had a limited theatrical run. It is also "common knowledge" that the run was three screens. It is "common knowledge" that the budget for the first film was £8,100. It is also quite clearly common and referenceable knowledge that both films had misleading cover art. There's no agenda there - just adding to the facts here on Misplaced Pages. Bradswanson2010 ] (]) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


For now, I have entirely omitted the final paragraph, which in the existing version goes into talking about treatments and cures. Producing a ''balanced'' version of this will be a challenge, given the evidence that most autistic people (including those with high support needs) ''would not want'' a cure, if such a thing were ever possible, and that the most popular 'treatment', ] is extremely unpopular with autistic people. I am also not sure we ''need'' a paragraph on this (this draft lead is about the longest I think a lead should be); we certainly shouldn't be devoting as many words to ABA as the current version does.
Edit warring report filed - this is not something we can help you with over here. See ]] '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


{{Dotted divider}}
I would welcome a resolution, but one that is based solely on the evidence available. Although there is no official budget confirmed by the production company, then perhaps the term 'rumored' should be used if £8,100 is stated on wikipedia. Regarding the number of screens, there is no evidence at all to support the number of screens being 3, so it should not be stated as a fact on wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Autism, officially known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by ], verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a ], autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are ], while others have proficient spoken language.
Agree with the above. £8,100 should remain but only with a "(rumored)" and the 3 screens should be removed completely as there are no facts at all or evidence to back it up.


Public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a ].<ref name="World Health Organization" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-08-28 |title=Overview {{!}} Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management {{!}} Guidance |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170 |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}</ref><ref name="iacc.hhs.gov" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders |last2=Dalwai |first2=Samir |last3=Ahmed |first3=Shabina |last4=Udani |first4=Vrajesh |last5=Mundkur |first5=Nandini |last6=Kamath |first6=S. S. |last7=C Nair |first7=M. K. |date=2017-05-15 |title=Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28368272/ |journal=Indian Pediatrics |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=385–393 |doi=10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4 |issn=0974-7559 |pmid=28368272}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Howes |first1=Oliver D |last2=Rogdaki |first2=Maria |last3=Findon |first3=James L |last4=Wichers |first4=Robert H |last5=Charman |first5=Tony |last6=King |first6=Bryan H |last7=Loth |first7=Eva |last8=McAlonan |first8=Gráinne M |last9=McCracken |first9=James T |last10=Parr |first10=Jeremy R |last11=Povey |first11=Carol |last12=Santosh |first12=Paramala |last13=Wallace |first13=Simon |last14=Simonoff |first14=Emily |last15=Murphy |first15=Declan G |date=2018-01-01 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology |journal=Journal of Psychopharmacology |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=3–29 |doi=10.1177/0269881117741766 |issn=0269-8811 |pmc=5805024 |pmid=29237331}}</ref> An alternative perspective, arising out of ],<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2020 |editor-last=Kapp |editor-first=Steven K. |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0 |journal=SpringerLink |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0}}</ref> is ], which positions autism as a healthy part of the ] of humankind, rather than a disorder. This is usually associated with some version of the ],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dwyer |first=Patrick |last2=Gurba |first2=Ava N |last3=Kapp |first3=Steven K |last4=Kilgallon |first4=Elizabeth |last5=Hersh |first5=Lynnette H |last6=Chang |first6=David S |last7=Rivera |first7=Susan M |last8=Gillespie-Lynch |first8=Kristen |date=2024-09-18 |title=Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613241273029 |journal=Autism |language=en |pages=13623613241273029 |doi=10.1177/13623613241273029 |issn=1362-3613}}</ref> suggesting that disability arises out of a mismatch between a person and their environment.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shakespeare |first=Tom |url=http://thedigitalcommons.org/docs/shakespeare_social-model-of-disability.pdf |title=The disability studies reader |date=1997 |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-415-91470-3 |editor-last=Davis |editor-first=Lennard J. |location=New York |chapter=The Social Model of Disability}}</ref> Others argue that autism can be inherently disabling.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12470 | doi=10.1111/japp.12470 | title=A Critique of the Neurodiversity View | date=2021 | journal=Journal of Applied Philosophy | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=335–347 | vauthors = Nelson RH }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Shields |first1=Kenneth |last2=Beversdorf |first2=David |date=1 July 2021 |title=A Dilemma For Neurodiversity |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |journal=Neuroethics |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=125–141 |doi=10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |issn=1874-5504}}</ref> The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy among those who are autistic and advocates, practitioners, and charities.<ref>{{cite book |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline |vauthors=Robison JE |date=2020 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-981-13-8437-0 |veditors=Kapp SK |place=Singapore |pages=221–232 |chapter=My Time with Autism Speaks |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16 |doi-access=free |s2cid=210496353}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Opar |first=Alisa |date=24 April 2019 |title=In search of truce in the autism wars |url=https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars |url-status=live |journal=Spectrum |publisher=] |doi=10.53053/VRKL4748 |s2cid=249140855 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708195918/https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars/ |archive-date=8 July 2022 |access-date=9 July 2022 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
Again, please remember to sign your comments - anyhow, that's two of you - '''however''', might I note that Bradswanson2010 claims that both of your are representing the same entity (which could, in some circumstances, be considered a ]). Another note, I have requested page protection on these pages in question in order to potentially "quell the storms" for a bit and let you rationally figure this out. '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


<!-- Causes and prevalence -->The ] are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that the disorder is ] and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hodges |first1=Holly |last2=Fealko |first2=Casey |last3=Soares |first3=Neelkamal |date=February 2020 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation |journal=Translational Pediatrics |language=en |volume=9 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=S55–S5S65 |doi=10.21037/tp.2019.09.09 |doi-access=free |pmid=32206584 |pmc=7082249 |issn=2224-4344}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ratajczak |first=Helen V. |date=2011-03-01 |title=Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |journal=Journal of Immunotoxicology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=68–79 |doi=10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |issn=1547-691X |pmid=21299355}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Mandy W, Lai MC |title=Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition |journal=] |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=271–292 |date=March 2016 |pmid=26782158 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.12501 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Autism frequently co-occurs with ] (ADHD), ], and ], and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of ] and feelings than the general population.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Bertelli |first1=Marco O. |title=Autism Spectrum Disorder |date=2022 |work=Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder |pages=391 |editor-last=Bertelli |editor-first=Marco O. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4mtvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 |access-date=8 June 2022 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16 |isbn=978-3-319-95720-3 |quote=Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have ] identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. |last2=Azeem |first2=Muhammad Waqar |last3=Underwood |first3=Lisa |last4=Scattoni |first4=Maria Luisa |last5=Persico |first5=Antonio M. |last6=Ricciardello |first6=Arianna |last7=Sappok |first7=Tanja |last8=Bergmann |first8=Thomas |last9=Keller |first9=Roberto |editor2-last=Deb |editor2-first=Shoumitro (Shoumi) |editor3-last=Munir |editor3-first=Kerim |editor4-last=Hassiotis |editor4-first=Angela |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name="Lord-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Lord |first1=Catherine |last2=Charman |first2=Tony |last3=Havdahl |first3=Alexandra |last4=Carbone |first4=Paul |last5=Anagnostou |first5=Evdokia |last6=Boyd |first6=Brian |last7=Carr |first7=Themba |last8=de Vries |first8=Petrus J |last9=Dissanayake |first9=Cheryl |author-link9=Cheryl Dissanayake |last10=Divan |first10=Gauri |last11=Freitag |first11=Christine M |display-authors=10 |date=2022 |title=The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism |url=https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2975811/Lancet+Commission.pdf?sequence=1 |journal=] |volume=399 |issue=10321 |pages=299–300 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5 |pmid=34883054 |s2cid=244917920 |via=] |hdl=11250/2975811}}</ref><ref name="Graham Holmes-2022" />
:I, like Theopolisme, am a volunteer here at DRN. Just a status update on this and a couple of comments:
:*The articles are fully protected until July 24, which means that only administrators can edit them.
:*One of the primary disputants has been blocked until 12:32, 21 July 2012, so this discussion is unlikely to move forward until at least after that time.
:*'''@All disputants:''' When the discussion resumes here it needs to do so strictly about the edits in question and whether, under Misplaced Pages principles, policies, and guidelines they are permissible here. Discussion about who the other editors are or are not, or about their biases, motivations for editing, points of view, or conflicts of interests must be entirely avoided: this noticeboard is for content, not conduct, disputes. In other words, we discuss ''edits,'' not ''editors.''
:Regards, ] (]) 14:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism,<ref name="The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanne">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR |date=December 2021 |title=The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond |journal=Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |volume=51 |issue=12 |pages=4253–4270 |doi=10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1 |pmc=8531066 |pmid=33624215}}</ref> and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J |title=Autism Spectrum Disorders |chapter=The Broad Autism Phenotype |year=2011 |pages=457–476 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-19-996521-2 |language=en-US |doi=10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Chapman R, Veit W |title=Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact? |journal=] |volume=26 |issue=11 |page=7069 |date=November 2021 |pmid=34697454 |doi=10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6 |s2cid=239771302 |doi-access=free}}</ref>. Estimates of ] have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J |title=The autism epidemic: fact or artifact? |language=English |journal=] |volume=46 |issue=6 |pages=721–730 |date=June 2007 |pmid=17513984 |doi=10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b}}</ref><ref name="Russell 2021" /> The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by ] that autism is ].<ref name="Annual Review of Virology">{{cite journal |vauthors=DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT |date=September 2019 |title=The MMR Vaccine and Autism |journal=] |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=585–600 |doi=10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515 |pmc=6768751 |pmid=30986133}}</ref> Boys are far ] than girls<ref name="CDC 2020" />, although this gap has been narrowing.{{citationneeded}}
Judging by the lack of verifiable sources, I would have to agree that "rumored" should be added to the budget, or the number itself should be taken out completely. Basic WP policy states that any information must be verifiable, and the current 3 links on the page are not pointing to anything discussing the budget, nor to any trustworthy source. Before attempting to claim that it is "common knowledge", I would recommend that ] read ]. ] (]) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


{{Dotted divider}}
== General Welfare clause ==


Note: I have , in order to start collecting notes about what ought to change, because I find Misplaced Pages's own interfaces extremely clunky for this sort of thing. Hopefully, keeping the rest of the article in mind while we focus on the lead will help us to navigate the potential issues that ] flags up.
{{DR case status}}
--] (]) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{drn filing editor|Foofighter20x|05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 05:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|General Welfare clause}}


{{Divider line}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


While I, like @], would like the lead section to be significantly more respectful and neurodiversity-affirming, I also agree that we should be aiming to build bridges, but I still want to make some suggestions to make the proposal by @] clearer and more neutral. Feel free to comment on them.
At the beginning, the article text was factually correct, though the section in dispute was poorly cited (an error I've corrected). It appears the crux of the dispute is that editor Esplainin2do did not or does not understand the context of stating that the GWC in the U.S. Const. does not confer upon the federal government of the U.S. a general police power. This is widely-held consensus among constitutional historians and lawyers.


===== First paragraph =====
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


1) Is “officially known as” the best wording? On the one hand, it can encourage readers to just use autism in daily life contexts but on the other hand it can imply a sense of authority that is already conveyed in the second paragraph and doesn’t necessarily need repetition. But it might still be better than just calling it ASD and suggesting it to be a fact of nature.
:* {{user|Esplainin2do}}
:* {{user|Foofighter20x}}
:
It appears Esplainin2do intends to impose a hyper-narrow view onto the article in hopes of what I'm not sure. However, Esplainin2do's hyper-narrow interpretation is not entirely correct, as the secondary source cites I've inserted demonstrate. Esplainin2do chooses to view those sources as cherry-picked evidence, opting to rely upon primary sources instead, which I'm not sure conforms to ].


2) Remove „(or conditions)“ because it’s confusing (general audience doesn’t know what is meant by it).
Outside of that, Esplainin2do is being belligerent, antagonistic, and accusatory; put another way, I feel like I'm being trolled. I've tried to get Esplainin2do to go back to the status quo ante and build consensus, but time and again he's refused. Trying to work with him on this has not yielded fruit.


3) Include „differences and difficulties in social interaction“ as not all social features of being autistic are difficulties.
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


4) Change „Being a spectrum disorder“ to „Being a spectrum“: the term disorder has already been mentioned in the first paragraph. The next paragraph makes it clear that diagnostic manuals classify autism as a disorder, using the term „disorder“ out of this context makes it appear more objective than it is.
Yes.


5) Mention strengths of autistic people, like pattern recognition.
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>General Welfare clause<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


===== Second paragraph =====
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


1) Change „healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder.“ to „healthy part of the diversity of humankind ''to be valued and supported'', rather than a disorder ''to be treated''.“
Discussion on the talk page has not worked. I've even requested assistance from two other editors, but their engagement was highly transitory.


2) Remove the citation of Shield’s paper as it focuses mainly on the criminal justice system and states that its conclusions need not apply to autistic people who don’t commit crimes, which is the overwhelming majority. It is too marginal of an aspect to be included in the lead section. Maybe Russell (2020) could be cited as an analysis of critiques of the neurodiversity movement. The sentence that others view autism as inherently disabling would then have to be changed. It is also misleading because neurodiversity academics don’t state that autism cannot have inherently disabling features alongside neutral features and strengths . It is a misconception and when deliberately used, a straw man.
* ''How do you think we can help?''


3) Make it clear that the debate is changing and the support for the neurodiversity movement is growing rapidly. Your proposal makes it appear to be a stalemate conflict which it isn’t. Also highlight the growing importance of self-advocacy and of seeing autistic people as the primary experts on the topic . Also cite Bottini et. Al (2024) . It is a secondary source with regard to the terminology being used in autism research. The fact that it is a primary source in its judgement of some of the terms as neurodiversity-affirming and others as not neurodiversity-affirming does not change that because critics would (if they are well-informed) not contend that not calling autism a disorder, for example, is neurodiversity-affirming while doing the opposite is not. Moreover, as @] ], we should only apply the rigid standards for medically reliable sources for sources that are about biomedical information. So even someone who sees it as a primary source cannot reasonably contend its citation anymore. Additional useful sources to cite are: and
Impose order. Provide guidance.


4) Maybe change „The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy ...“ to „There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among ...“
] (]) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


===General Welfare clause discussion=== ===== Third paragraph =====
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>


1) Write „autism is highly heritable“ instead of „the disorder is highly heritable“ (see my remark 4) for the first paragraph). This is completely neutral and even those who view autism as a disorder should be able to agree.
== Autobiography of a Yogi ==


2) Include mental health issues like depression and anxiety as co-occurring conditions , ideally with a reference to masking and stigma .
{{DR case status|open}}
{{drn filing editor|Tat Sat|05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 05:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Autobiography of a Yogi}}


===== Fourth paragraph =====
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


1) Change „Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis“ to „There is an ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria“ and also cite .
This article is about a book that was published in 1946 and is in public domain. Instead of having the book's original cover, the page advertises a subsequent edition of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship, one of the 5 or 6 Publishers of the same book. The trajetory of this book publication has many disputes and controversial issues since after the author's death, Self-Realizatin Fellowship made nearly one thousand changes in the original text and forged the author's signature. Red Rose supresses reccurrently all the contoversy from the article. There was even a lawsuit in which SRF accused Ananda, another publisher of the book, of violating its copyright . SRF lost the lawsuit: . "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda." - The legal case is posted in Wikisource. Thank you.


2) Change „myth“ to „entirely disproven conspiracy theory“
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


3) Use this citation for the narrowing gender gap between males and females and also mention the biases leading to females being under-diagnosed.
:* {{user|Red Rose 13}}
:* {{user|Sitush}}
:* {{user|NestedVariable}}
:* {{user|Tat Sat}}


--] (]) 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


:Thanks, I support most of these suggestions. I suggest we wait a day or so to see if any other parties to this dispute have other feedback, before co-producing a draft lead integrating suggestions.
Yes.
:A few of your suggestions, like 'entirely disproven conspiracy theory', may be unnecessarily wordy - important to keep in mind the guidelines ], I think, given how many of the problems with the existing entry relate to its ballooning length.
:Just to reinforce the overall thrust of what we're trying to do here: accoding to Misplaced Pages guidelines, a ] "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity."
:So avoiding language that disparages autistic people should be a priority, as long as it doesn't otherwise violate neutrality (or other guidelines).
:] also explicitly states, in case there was any doubt: "Words like ''disease'', ''disorder'', or ''affliction'' are not always appropriate." ] (]) 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::This paper mentions the tensions between autistic people and the research community, calling for a paradigm shift in biomedical autism research. The authors are important figures in Europe's largest autism research project, AIMS-2-Trials. It could be cited at the end of the second paragraph where it is about the controversy between the models. ] (]) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


===Back-and-forth discussion (Autism)===
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Autobiography of a Yogi<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>
{{u|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}, my understanding is that by "community consensus," Robert McClenon means consensus via an RfC advertised to the community at large; elsewhere, he contrasted that with "local consensus here" (i.e., consensus only among the editors participating in this DRN). Re: "Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN," at least one of them was invited to participate here but declined (as did some editors who don't support the current framing); participation here is entirely voluntary. My understanding is that you can invite wider participation as long as the invitation is consistent with the guidelines in ]; however, since the existence of this DRN has already been advertised on the Autism talk page, I don't know that there are any other venues that would make sense to advertise it. ] (]) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:I'm baffled as to why my comment has that visual appearance. I don't see anything in the source editor that would result in that. Apologies, ] (]) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
::You have a space before the first curly bracket, that produces the 'box effect'. Feel free to remove this pointer once you have edited your text. ] (])
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''
:::Fixed. Thank you! ] (]) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see, thank you for clarifying this! I will see if I can promote the DRN elsewhere on Misplaced Pages as well ] (]) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


I tried to discuss the changes made in the article but it is impossible to reach a consensus when there is sectarism. Also Red Rose provides innacurate information given him by SRF.


{{u|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}} wrote (above):
* ''How do you think we can help?''


{{tq|... standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned.}}
It would help to have an editor with experience in book pages who is also familiar with ethics in publication.


(a) Correction: The American ''Psychiatric'' Association publishes the DSM.
] (]) 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


(b) "... it is not even mentioned." - What is not mentioned?
===Autobiography of a Yogi discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
*{{u|Tat Sat}} is jumping the gun here. The present dispute is fundamentally one concerning an image, it (the dispute) has existed for < 24 hours and whether Tat Sat realises it or not, I am pretty experienced and have no particular axe to grind with regard to it. I have asked for input from {{u|Magog the Ogre}} and also at ]. While I foresee that somewhere down the line issues relating to this article will probably require attention from DRN, now is not the time. I propose that this request be closed as premature. - ] (]) 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:{{u|Tat Sat}} has reverted the article to more or less the version 3 years ago, as claimed by 2 other editors which, I agree, is not an improvement to the article. {{U|Tat Sat}} must engage in better communication (skills) on the talk page or here and as stated and make a case for the changes he believes should be made to the article and not revert back to older and poorer versions of the article.] (]) 07:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Sitush and CC. Tat Sat needs to understand Misplaced Pages policies in terms of what constitutes to be reliable content. The article as it was 3 years back contained numerous irrelevant, unsourced and pov materials. Misplaced Pages is not a forum to present both sides of a conspiracy theory. ] (]) 10:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::*{{u|Tat Sat}} and we are in the middle of negotiations and I believe we were coming to a logical, fair resolution for a book which at the moment has 6 different publishers with 6 different covers (with probably more in the future as the 1st edition revision is in public domain) that we need to represent in a fair manner. {{u|Tat Sat}} needs to learn how to be part of a collaborative group creating a article that is neutral and is properly sourced. This is premature and I agree with Sitush, Curb Chain & Nested Variables.] (]) 12:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


(c) "they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD" - I encourage you to consider the history of mental disorders listed in the DSM. For example, until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and therefore a medical disorder, since the DSM is published by an organization of physicians. For many years, including for many years after 1973, children, adolescents, and adults were told that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a psychopathology that requires long-term treatment to (possibly) eliminate the mental illness—such as the medical treatment provided to ].
:: Unfortunatelly I cannot agree. While we were discussing the page in order to attain consensus, Red Rose kept editing and made TEN small editions. Please check this information, it´s true. I reverted the article and was threatened to be blocked, while nobody found anything wrong with Red Rose´s editions. We had agreed we would discuss the issues one by one before editing, since the trajetory of the book is controvert, and includes disputes and lawsuits. Red Rose suppressed all the controversial issues, considering only SRF´s points of view and using SRF as the paragon of truth. We cannot ignore that SRF forged Yogananda´s signature many years after his death (this technical term meaning "the creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one..."). This polemic point in question - one among many - impairs SRF´s credibility and contradicts the guidelines of Publication Ethics. The page as it is advertises SRF. That´s why I asked for ]. You cannot choose SRF´s cover in detriment of all the others presently in print and authorized by law. The book was published in 1946 WITH a cover that cannot be hidden nor kept from public knowledge because someone does not like it. This should not even be the object of discussion. We need the help of an experienced editor of book pages, aware of the ethics of publication. Thank you. ] (]) 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Simply listing an alleged disorder in the DSM medicalizes it. I hope you understand this important point.
:::You were warned because you were causing disruptive edits by reverting back even after multiple editors asked you to come to a consensus first. Take a look at ]. ] (]) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


At the same time, there are some important differences between homosexuality and autism spectrum disorders, so I should make clear that I am not comparing them in most aspects. I actually agree with you that autism spectrum disorders are neurodevelopmental disorders. However, this article is about autism, not just autism spectrum disorders. Also, we are an encyclopedia, not a professional treatment guideline or diagnostic manual, so it is important for us to discuss political, sociological, phenomenological, and many other aspects of autism. The article will still be about, mostly, a neurodevelopmental disorder. But it will also include an enriched understanding, grounded in reliable sources, that reviews the many facets of this condition, including the lived experience of people diagnosed with it. What we're trying to do is get away from narrow, rigid editing that creates articles that sound like a psychiatric treatment textbook. -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 04:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think it is important to point here that the other 3 people involved in this dispute - with all due respect for them - do not think the article is sectarian, since they edited it. I am the only one who disagrees. And Red Rose´s editions - literally hundreds of them - (please check the history of the editions) - are not considered disruptive. Thank you. -- ] (]) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


:a) By that statement, I meant the DSM criteria for ASD does not mention medical treatments.
:*You have been advised on several occasions to be careful regarding your accusations and, indeed, not to personalise discussions. Yet you do it again now. Why? Please show me the diff where I say that the article is not "sectarian". I have explicitly stated that I have no axe to grind here and that things need to be discussed. I've made attempts to progress that discussion in various places, as have others. The only thing that is causing problems with that discussion is your reverts to what is indubitably an unacceptable version. You should note the Curb Chain - who is uninvolved - also considers that version not to be an improvement. Please take a read of ]. - ] (]) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:b) Sorry, I made a typo there, indeed the American ''Psychiatric,'' and not ''Psychological'', Association publishes the DSM. Note that while they are not the direct publishers, the ''American Psychological Association'' among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists.
:c) I understand your concern but you are specifically referencing borderline pre-scientific conceptions of disorders that have no bearing on our modern outlook. In the early DSM iterations, homosexuality was indeed implicitly included as a disorder. This was largely because of political reasons and an idiosyncratic interpretation of what qualifies as a disorder. For decades since then, there has been a global scientific consensus (Barkley et al., 2002; Faraone et al., 2021) that for something to qualify as a disorder it must meet '''two''' criteria. First, there must be scientifically established evidence of a dysfunction or deviation in a trait universal to humans. One may argue homosexuality meets this first criteria as it deviates from the more typical heterosexuality in the underlying spectrum of sexuality universal to humans.
:However, the second criteria requires this deviation or dysfunction causes significant impairment or distress in major life domains and/or predisposes to increased morbidity and early mortality. Homosexuality does not meet this criteria and is therefore not a disorder; whilst ''some'' homosexual people may experience problems due to societal oppression and discrimination, this is not attributable to the condition itself.
:This is ultimately why we can't compare things like homosexuality and transgender (which are not impairing or disabling) to neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD (which are). I'm know you agree with this differentiation and are aware of the criterion for establishing disorders, but it seems I need to describe it so we can avoid these sort of comparisons.
:It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to prescribe medical treatment. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP). No guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD.
:I'm aware and have personally dealt with the fact that DSM committees are far from perfect and make egregious errors at times, including for political reasons, which is why I have not relied on the DSM at all. This was much worse back in its early versions indeed, but has improved substantially since. It was one reputable reference of many I have provided. I'd like to ask you please consider re-reading my statement, the citations, and the contexts of the aforementioned scientific literature which go far beyond medicine.
:The article is about autism which ''is a neurodevelopmental disorder''. If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the ''autism spectrum'' is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know. ] (]) 13:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm puzzled by your comment that "It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it." It seems that your assessment of whether something is medicalized is a function of whether it's treated/treatable with medication. Have I misunderstood how you assess whether something has been medicalized? There are many medical concerns that are addressed through behavioral or other adaptations rather than medication (e.g., through physical therapy, condom use, hand washing, use of mosquito nets, exercise, water treatment). When I look at the terminology used for many of the main headings in the article (e.g., symptoms, diagnosis, etiology, comorbidities, interventions, prevention, prognosis, epidemiology), these strike me as mostly medical terms, and certainly the combination strikes me as a medical perspective (e.g., if you do an internet search for that set of words, the results are medical conditions). Would you mind clarifying how you assess whether something has been medicalized? Thanks, ] (]) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't like it when neurotypical people say "every one is on the spectrum" but luckily you only ''almost'' said that:
::"From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism." So everyone has everything then? You didn't say that but this idea of people-having-something-but-it-not-being-bad-enough-to-count could be used on any condition or disability, at least in a social way like when talking to people, you could use it to offend and devaluatie someone.
::"starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder."
::But only a little bit so it doesn't count. I understand, but personally I only think the autistic ones are autistic, but that's off topic. ] (]) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Anthony, I believe there are two different ways to understand the "ASD" spectrum.
:::One works like this: All the neurotypical people get put in this big neurotypical bubble over here: ⭕️. They are not on the spectrum because they are not autistic. All the autistic people are excluded from the neurotypical bubble, and they line up along the autistic spectrum, ranging from ]. The spectrum runs <small>(more or less, because being autistic is a multidimensional experience, and this is an over-simplifed two-dimensional spectrum)</small> from "barely qualifies as autistic" to "extremely autistic".
:::The other works like this: All humans have a place on the spectrum of human variation. Everyone is somewhere in the ] colors. The extremely neurotypical people are at one end, and the extremely autistic people are at the other end. People who are not at the extremes line up somewhere in the middle. This is "everyone is on the spectrum"; that spectrum runs from "extremely non-autistic" to "extremely autistic".
:::I have my own preferences, and I think it's confusing to use the word "spectrum" to describe both the spectrum of autistic people and the spectrum of all humans, but neither of these is bad or wrong. It may help if people are clear about which meaning they're using. ] (]) 07:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Way #1 is better, also some people believe you can't be more or less autistic I think I mostly agree with this unless the person is intellectually impaired, or maybe that just means their intellectually impaired. Anyway yt is bad for Misplaced Pages but if there are any other sources that fell this way it should probably be mentioned on the page: "some autism advocates say you can't compare who's more or less autistic". ] (]) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that moving away from the psychoanalytic diagnostic model to a research based model with DSM-III was a major improvement. However, my point is that including a condition in a medical diagnostic manual has the potential for both positive and negative impacts on people in a variety of ways. By itself, this is of course not a reason to exclude or include a condition in a medical diagnostic manual, it's simply one of many considerations.
::Note that I am intentionally calling the DSM a "medical diagnostic manual", because psychiatry is a branch of medicine. With regard to the American Psychological Association, while some psychologists and other non-physician professionals serve on DSM committees, there is no doubt that this is an American psychiatric Association publication and that psychiatrists run the show. A useful way to highlight this distinction is to note that the American psychological association is not listed as an author or copyright holder for the DSM, and does not earn any income from the sale of the DSM and all that related products associated with it. On the other hand, the American Psychiatric Association makes a ton of money with their copyright and trademark of the DSM name and contents. Since we, in the United States, live in a country with a free market economy (capitalism), all I can say is more power to them. But my point here is that while some psychologists are involved, it is the psychiatrists who are in charge and make the final decisions. <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I feel puzzled by the statements <quote> ''If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the autism spectrum is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know'' </quote> at many levels.
::* Firstly, somebody can show less extent of Autistic traits yet be more stressed/ impaired due to mismatch with environment or bad consequences. A person with more significantly severe symptoms might be less stressed / do better with better support and understanding. School or workplace problems, self ha*rm, agressions meltdowns etc are often caused by stressful situations the person is unable to handle.
::* When an Autistic (or non-Autistic) person cannot cope up and end up with traumatic complication (according to their own nervous system), it is called PTSD/ CPTSD. When a person shows '''significant level of Autistic traits''' then the person is called '''Autistic'''. When the person cannot function due to these (better to say a more sensitive nervous system that gets messed up in the same stimuli that neurotypicals comfortably digest) and enters into a state of shutdown or paralysis or bad condition, it is called '''PTSD/ CPTSD co-occuring with Autism.'''
::* Autism is primarily defined as a social and communication disorder, and '''it takes at least 2 people to establish communication.''' Telling only one of them having communication disorder just because this group is less understood and less in number, is ridiculous. The mismatch between interaction is the key factor that make us appear functionally impaired.
::* People do not fluctuate in and out impairment: '''Autistic people remain same level of Autistic.''' The stress level, mental stability, cope-up power fluctuates depending upon incidences and environment.
::* No, everyone is DAMN not little bit Autistic. If everyone was somewhere on the Autism spectrum, then understanding and accommodation would NOT be this hard, we would NOT be so much misunderstood and judged. It is true that many people are misdiagnosed with a secondary mental health condition only. Or miss a diagnosis, never come to know they were Autistic, or access a diagnosis late in life... as a surprise discovery or accidental medical finding on some weird or traumatic life phase. STILL, no, NOT everyone in the planet is anywhere on the spectrum.
::* The Autism spectrum is multidimensional, and the severity level is an unhelpful linear oversimplification of Autism spectrum. Because different Autistics have their needs and strengths in very different cognitive and sensori-motor domains. So called mild Autistics can have a different set of more severe problems, so called severe Autistics can have less problem in those domains. Each Auyistics go through different life situations. ] (]) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The goal should be reducing or minimizing the traumatic state. We can also prevent traumatic situation to some degree if diagnosis, support, and information are more accessible. ] (]) 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


To quote Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test: "Regarding scientific evidence, '''there is evidence for both neurodiversity and disorder'''. For example, at the genetic level, about 5 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to
* Do not worry, Sitush, I have understood I am not to revert the article. Again, with all due respect, anyone who compares both versions will see that SRF´s point of view prevails in the present one. In fact, it is the only one; SRF´s cover illustrates the present page -- not the original cover of the book -- and all the controversy and disputes and lawsuits have been suppressed - together with a brief explanation of the differences in the content of the book before and after the author´s death. That´s why I say the page is sectarian. I am not accusing anybody personally. Perhaps I am sending the wrong input. I am trying to focus on the book´s trajetory as a literary and most controversial publication. And I agree with you that the version I reverted to needs to be edited. But at least it is not sectarian, since it contains relevant information which counterpoints SRF´s point of view. I am glad to acknowledge that you never said specificaly that the article "is not sectarian". I made this wrong presumption because you helped Red Rose to edit the page, insert SRF´s cover and remove a lot of content. I demand your pardon. Thank you. ] (]) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
rare genetic variants/mutations, many of which cause not just autism but also severe developmental delays (disorder), whilst about 50 percent of the variance in autism can be
attributed to common genetic variants such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation. At the neural level, some regions of the autistic brain (such as the amygdala, in childhood) are larger, and others (such as the posterior section of the corpus callosum) are smaller. These are evidence of difference but not necessarily disorder. Early brain overgrowth is another sign of difference but not necessarily disorder." See: https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2019_Baron-Cohen_Concept-of-neurodiversity.pdf


I think that in and of itself, this single quotation destroys the idea that the scientific consensus is only supportive of the 'medical model' of autism. It also effectively discredits its corollary, that scientists reject the 'neurodiverity model' of autism, or consign it to the realms of 'fringe theory'. I suggest that Baron-Cohen's ideas on the equal and complimentary nature of the two models is a useful paradigm for the treatment of autism on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Moving forward, discuss changes first on the talk page and come to a consensus. Make sure you are not basing major content on primary research but secondary notable/reliable sources (Ananda or SRF related/affiliated sites or personal blogs/ websites are not considered neutral or notable source in regards to this topic as both of these two rival groups have interest in the content). Currently as the article stands, gets its content from notable secondary sources. Feel free to propose contents that adhere to the same principles. Take a look at other featured articles and see how the content is being presented. Do not create abrupt disruptive edits or make personal attacks against the editors. It's a community site, try to work with other editors (including Red Rose) collaboratively in improving the content. Glad to see you are open to consensus moving forward. Everyone has their own views about certain things but wikipedia is not the vehicle to express it. All information needs to be properly sourced. Thank You. ] (]) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
* NestedVariable, thank you for your post, but the page as it is contains only information provided by SRF and favorable to SRF. Could you please kindly explain to me why is it so? Even the cover of the book is SRF´s, instead of the original one. I think it is relevant to know also what Ananda says and not only SRF. They are both accountable for what they say and they both publish the book, although different versions of it. Their books are sold at amanzo.com, Barnes & Nobles, etc. and people want to know why there are two version of the same book for sale. For instance, I think the page should contain SRF´s explanation for the changes in the book and the forgery of Yogananda´s signature, as well as Ananda´s comparison of the changes made in the text before and after the author´s death. These are relevant and most pollemic issues. What you are saying could be a fallacy to protect SRF from controversy. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. I think only anonymous sites could not be used as a means of reference. Thank you ] (]) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


:I hope that Baron-Cohen isn't actually claiming, as it sounds from this quotation, that anything resulting from SNP mutations is "natural variation", because some SNP mutations result in deadly diseases (e.g., some forms of cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc.). Premature death could be described as "]" but it's not what most people think of as "natural variation". ] (]) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: The cover of the book is under discussion in various areas. We will probably come to a consensus as per to what to do next. Please have patience. Getting to your next point, it is not important for wikipedia what Ananda or SRF thinks or says. All information needs to come from reliable secondary sources to ensure that we are maintaining ] as per wikipedia guidelines. If what is claimed by Ananda or SRF is true then there has to be some reliable secondary sources of information. Please take a look ] and ]. This will hopefully make wikipedia guidelines clear to you. Thank You. ] (]) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::That is exactly what he is claiming. The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial. He is contrasting SNPs with larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications, which are almost always highly deleterious. The major determinant of blue eyes in humans is a SNP in the OCA2 gene, known as rs12913832, I doubt that possessing blue eyes can be called a 'deadly disease'. Even if Baron-Cohen is not a molecular biologist by training, I am. ] (]) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think it is easier to interpret Baron-Cohen's sense here if you omit SNPs, which are given as an example: '50 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation'.
:::There's no implication that ''all'' SNPs 'simply reflect natural variation', on my reading... but either way, it's worth bearing in mind that the term ']' is notoriously slippery. Sounds positive; actually includes all sorts of value-neutral or feared phenomena. ] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Baron-Cohen is saying that many of the SNPs involved in autism are part of the natural variation within humanity as a whole. That is, he is pointing to these SNPs as being part of neurodiversity. A simplified corollary would be, again, the major blue eye colour SNP. Blue eye SNPs are found throughout populations of European descent, but an individual only displays blue eyes when they have two copies of the OCA2 gene with the SNP. With autism-associated SNPs, the individual will only display autism when they have above a certain threshold number of the alleles containing the 'autism SNPs'. It is a simple concept. For the majority of the population with lower numbers of autism-associated SNPs, they are not autistic and the individual SNPs may be neutral or even beneficial in their effects. Some autism-associated SNPs are connected to higher than average academic attainment. SNP variants as such can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. I have a number of Neanderthal-derived SNPs, one that affects my muscles - makes me a better sprinter than distance runner, two that make me less fearful of heights and one that means I do not get agitated or moody when hungry. SNPs are variable in their effects they are just changes to one nucleotide, it is where and how that change occurs that determines its phenotypic outcome. The concept of SNPs is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself. ] (]) 17:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yup! Thanks for that authoritative summary. :) ] (]) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Urselius, if Baron-Cohen is actually using the molecular mechanism as a way to ''define'' "normal human variation", then that's quite ]. He'd be defining ] – which is mostly harmless – as a "disorder" and most cases of ] – which can be deadly – as normal variation. Let's find better sources for determining what "normal human variation" is. I suspect (but would be happy to be proven wrong) that those better sources are going to rely more on the phenotype, e.g., "It is not 'normal' for children to scream for multiple hours a day." ] (]) 08:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::WhatamIdoing, I think the difference between "natural" and "normal" might be meaningful here. Among the meanings of "natural" (the word in the Baron-Cohen quote) is "typical" or "normal," but another is "found in nature." When I read Urselius's comment that "The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial," my sense is that "natural" is being used in the second sense, not the first. My interpretation of Urselius's comment is that most human variation found in nature "consists for SNPs," where that variation might result in disease, or have a neutral effect, or be a beneficial change.
::::::Elsewhere in the short article, Baron-Cohen explains some of the terms he's using:
::::::{{tq2|The term “disorder” is used when an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown, whilst the term “disease” is used when a disorder can be ascribed to a specific causal mechanism. The term “disability” is used when an individual is below average on a standardized measure of functioning and when this causes suffering in a particular environment. In contrast, the term “difference” simply refers to variation in a trait, like having blue or brown eyes.}} So I don't think he'd say that XYY syndrome is a disorder, and he might say that phenylketonuria is natural in the sense of "found in nature," but not natural in the sense of "normal." He doesn't define how he's using either "natural" or "normal" and only uses each one time in the article, and even then, he only uses "normal" inside quotation marks:
::::::{{tq2|Many autistic people—especially those who have intact language and no learning difficulties such that they can self-advocate—have adopted the neurodiversity framework, coining the term “neurotypical” to describe the majority brain and seeing autism as an example of diversity in the set of all possible diverse brains, none of which is “normal” and all of which are simply different.}}
:::::: ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If the relevant definition is "found in nature", then "larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications" are equally "natural".
:::::::It sounds like we need a definition of "dysfunction". (We leave aside the fact that asymptomatic dysfunction is also a medical disorder, since his focus is on behavioral health.) Is it a "dysfunction" if you are "below average on a standardized measure of functioning"? In a less politicized area, such as ], we would say that you have a "dysfunction" or a "disorder" if you are significantly worse than average on standardized measures of functioning, such as the ability to lean forward without pain. If an autistic person is significantly below average on a standardized measure of functioning, e.g., social communication, then would that not be "a disorder"? ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think which definition is relevant depends on the context. Yes, if the intended meaning is "'found in nature', then 'larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications' are equally 'natural'". But Urselius indicated that the human variation that results from larger scale changes to DNA is less common than the variation that results from SNPs, and that SNPs and larger scale changes to DNA have different distributions of deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects. I'm guessing that "dysfunction" is meant as something like "impaired function relative to what's typical for a healthy person." I wouldn't think that simply being below average necessarily means that you're atypical, since "typical for a healthy person" is often a range, and someone can be below average but still in that healthy range. However, significantly below would indicate dysfunction. I don't understand your last question: why would it not be a disorder? Seems to me that it falls in his description of disorder: "an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown." ] (]) 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::To a first approximation, all mutations are lethal. For the uncommon subset of mutations that both produce a practical effect and aren't immediately lethal, then on average, bigger changes are more damaging than smaller changes. However, that's about the average, and as a simple example, a single SNP mutation can change the three-letter code for a Tyr or Cys amino acid into a ], which has the same practical effect as a deletion of the rest of that gene. It would be silly to say that cystic fibrosis caused by a deletion is a "disease" but cystic fibrosis caused by an unfortunately located stop codon "simply reflect individual differences or natural variation" when both cases are producing the same partial and equally ineffective protein. ] (]) 02:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah, I'm assuming that the discussion isn't about mutations that are immediately lethal and is instead about human variation among those who are born. Re: your example, aren't they both examples of "variation found in nature," with both cases resulting in disease? Somehow I'm missing the point of your example. ] (]) 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The point is that declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation' is nonsense. The genetic mechanism is less important than the practical result. ] (]) 22:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::But I don't think anyone is {{tq|declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation'}}. As I understand it, both deletions ''and'' SNPs are "natural variation" (''not'' in the sense of "normal"), and either can produce disorder, but disorder is a more common result with the former than the latter (excluding all of the mutations that are immediately lethal). ] (]) 00:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is an awful lot of discussion of what I'm fairly sure is a misunderstanding of what SBC said in the first place. Maybe it could be good to ], with the odd excursion into things directly relevant to that process? ] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I can't really contribute to the redrafting, and perhaps I should stop participating entirely. At any rate, I will try to be more mindful about whether or not my comments are productive with respect to the dispute resolution and to avoid those that are peripheral. ] (]) 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Is a reliable biological difference between autism with intellectual disability and autism without intellectual disability an established theory or is it just a conjecture posed by some? I wonder why those who advocate for viewing autistic people with intellectual disabilities as disordered don't seem to use this as an argument (apart from Baron-Cohen) and even scientific sources don't often mention it and instead refer to there being multiple subtypes some of which have a somewhat higher likelihood of intellectual disability than others.
:::::In the talk section, you wrote (]) about your achievements, marriage, children, house owning and savings in order to counter claims of impairment. Maybe you have read about the social model of disability in the meantime, but showing how much we achieve is not necessary for countering disorder narratives. It can even come close to Aspie supremacism () because it implies that one's brain is superior to that of an autistic person with intellectual disability. There is certainly a hope for a biological difference among autistic people without intellectual disability who want to distance themselves from what they call the "really impaired" ones.
:::::From my perspective (I'm not a geneticist or neuroscientist) it looks more like there is no clear boundary between the two, but please correct me if I'm wrong. ] (]) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't necessarily doubt the status of this scientist but it is quite a fallacious argument from authority to use this to help perceive the reputability of a source (as it seems implied to me). People are fallible, scientific consensus is usually much less so.
:I'm glad you point towards how neurodiversity and disorder as concepts are not mutually exclusive. The issue is with the so-called ''Neurodiversity Movement'', specifically the subset of its advocates who argue they are incompatible and thus assert ASD is not a real disorder.
:The validity of ASD as a neurodevelopmental of course doesn't deny the underlying neurological diversity that leads to the disorder. But what's been empirically demonstrated is that once this diversity becomes sufficiently severe, significant impairment in major life domains, distress and/or predisposition to morbidity, injury and early mortality arise.
:I'd like to note the scientific consensus for concluding ASD is a disorder isn't medically based, regardless of whether people wish to impose this term on it in order to contrast it with a "social model". Diagnosticians do not ''necessarily'' prescribe medical treatment but merely affirm the presence or absence of a disorder or other form of condition. No medication has been found to reduce the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no reputable guidelines, to my knowledge, have approved use of any medication for ASD. This doesn't take away from the fact that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, as noted by Nelson (2020). In the list of references, the terminology is not invalidated but actually consistently used in subfields of ASD that are unrelated to medicine. ] (]) 14:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::A consensus is not a consensus if a major player does not subscribe to it. Baron-Cohen, amongst active researchers in the field of autism, is far from being alone in his views. There was a scientific consensus that space was pervaded by aether, which was the 'carrier' for electromagnetic radiation, until the work of Einstein disproved it. Scientists, let alone medics, can adhere to incorrect consensuses. More cogently, science can also admit the possible validity of two or more differing hypotheses or theories at the same time, if the evidence is interpretable in more than one way. ] (]) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The field of contributors and published literature in ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher or publication to wave the scientific consensus. Keep in mind that the argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature would occur.
:::Citing the scientific consensus shouldn't be automatically untrustworthy because it has been wrong in the past. This implication ignores the Darwinian self-corrective process that is the scientific enterprise---proposing, testing, and refining based on the evidence thus far obtained. Even when paradigm shifts occur in science, it is exceedingly rare that the prior model is discarded but rather superseded by a more comprehensive model, e.g., the introduction of General Relativity didn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics (to expand on the example topic you cited).
:::An appeal to scientific consensus isn't fallacious in the same way appealing to a singular authority is. For instance, if every single chemist alive unanimously agrees on the existence of the periodic table, then it's very indicative of the fact that that's how molecules work. This would be so even if I am unqualified to understand the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. ] (]) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::A consensus is a generally accepted opinion, it comes close to suggesting unanimity. As I have said, Baron-Cohen is not just eminent in the field of autism research he is far from alone! Here are just some scientific/medical publications and their authors that challenge your consensus: Akhtar, N., & Jaswal, V.K. (2013). Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths: An introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1–3. Bagatell, N. (2010). From cure to community: Transforming notions of autism. Ethos, 38, 33–55. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. (Eds.) (2020). Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. London: Routledge. Callanan, M., & Waxman, S. (2013). Commentary on special section: Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths. Developmental Psychology, 49, 80–83. Dawson, M., & Mottron, L. (2011). Do autistics have cognitive strengths? Should ASC be defined as disorders? In S. Bolte & J. Hallmayer (Eds.), Autism spectrum conditions: FAQs on autism, Asperger syndrome, and atypical autism answered by international experts (pp. 32–39). Boston: Hogrefe Publishing. den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider's perspective. Autism, 23, 271–273. Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis, 20, 20–30. Leadbitter, K., Buckle, K.L., Ellis, C., & Dekker, M. (2021). Autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement: Implications for autism early intervention research and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(Article 635690), 1–7. Nicolaidis, C. (2012). What can physicians learn from the neurodiversity movement? American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 14, 503–510. Robertson, S.M. (2010). Neurodiversity, quality of life, and autistic adults: Shifting research and professional focuses onto real-life challenges. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30. Einstein's work did entirely consign the concept of aether to the dustbin. Your extrapolation, away from the point I was making, in no way invalidates that assertion, or the mutability of scientific consensuses. ] (]) 21:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::As with the term 'medical', it's unclear what 'scientific consensus' means to you, which is why I have pressed you on this before. It appears that you do not mean the same thing as what other participants here mean by the phrase.
::I would argue that it is ''not'' a 'fallacious argument from authority' to point out that the author of the single most-cited paper on autism () publicly disagrees with the putative 'scientific consensus', and that this indicates that it is in fact something short of a ] among scientists. There are, however, many other, stronger lines of evidence for this conclusion, as . Evidently, a large number of relevant scientists actively disagree with the position you are describing. As such, it straightforwardly does not fit what most people mean by the phrase 'scientific consensus' - hence my sense that in order to move forward, we need you to explain exactly what you mean by the term.
::To return to the question of what 'medical' means, when you say 'diagnosis', do you not intend it in the sense of ']'? If not, ]. ] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, and as I take into account my time constraints, I don't think ''us'' conversing or debating the specific issue again of whether a large number of scientists disagree would be worthwhile. I believe we've already made our positions clear in the talk page about the juxtaposition of sources, and what Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest, at least as we perceive them, so it would just be a regurgitation of essentially the same points that weren't convincing the first time.
:::With that said, I'm not arguing that citing a single source is an argument from authority, but rather the insertion of "a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test" is fallaciously implying we should consider their opinion at a higher regard than sources who don't exhibit this subjective status of respect or have developed the AQ autism test.
:::I understand ''why'' people like to mention this sort of background context; in fact, I sometimes do similar things in informal settings to show my admiration of a scientist; but it's fallacious given the context. To give an analogy, if ] had told someone or had published a scientific article concluding that the moon was made out of cheese, we would have had little or no reason to accept this as fact on Misplaced Pages. If he published a scientific paper, peer-reviewed it and the referees of the entire scientific community astonishingly did not find anything wrong with it, we arguably would have to.
:::Citing a singular source isn't fallacious but, in our context, is insufficient. This is because ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher's stance to wave the existing consensus. I'd like to be clear: this does not suggest a researcher is unable to be right about the consensus being wrong. The argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature and by extent, the consensus, would occur. ] (]) 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Again, there appears to be a misunderstanding here relating to the meaning of words, particularly ]. I have pointed this out a number of times, but you are still not addressing it.
::::The eminence of SBC in the field of autism is ''clearly'' relevant to the weight of his dissent from the supposed scientific consensus (although if it was ''just'' him, there might be a conversation to be had). When multiple leading scientists in a field disagree, there is simply not a consensus. ] (]) 07:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There seems to be a basic difference in understanding here of what 'medical', 'medicalisation' and related terms mean. The DSM is the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders''. It is published by the ]. It is absolutely, fundamentally, a medical document: a ''clinical handbook''. If you look down the list of contributors, you'll see significantly more 'M.D.' than 'Ph.D.'


Similarly, ESCAP is the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Psychiatry is a ''medical field''. Psychiatrists are, by definition, ''doctors''. NICE is the National Institute for ''Clinical'' Excellence. ICD is the International Classification of ''Diseases'' (ICD), which Misplaced Pages describes as 'a globally used medical classification', and so on.
* Again I insist that this discussion about the cover of the book should not exist. The book was published in 1946 with a specific cover and this cover is the original one. That´s all. Also when someone goes to buy a book of which there are 6 or 7 versions with different content and different signatures of the same author in different covers, he will want to know why. Of course we have to quote the Publishers and hear what they say. People will read the explanations and will form an opinion. It is not a matter of deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is a matter of information. Sorry, but I am obliged to disagree with you again. Besides SRF has sued Ananda for copyright violation and lost. The book entering public domain is a direct consequence of the results of this lawsuit which can be accessed at Wikiquote. That´s why I am asking for the help of an experienced book editor. The trajetory of this book is full of controversial issues and relevant information about them. Thank you. ] (]) 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


I have never encountered the suggestion before that these things could plausibly be considered non-medical; I'm not sure what definition Dmitri has in mind here, but from the context I wonder if he's interpreting it only to refer to ]?
: "''Also when someone goes to buy a book of which there are 6 or 7 versions with different content and different signatures of the same author in different covers, he will want to know why''"
::: Well, you are presuming wikipedia is a platform of advocacy. It's not. Follow the guidelines as per ] and ]. ] (]) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


I believe that nearly everybody here would interpret the term ] to include the above. Some might prefer ], but the distinction is ''largely'' academic, and 'medical' is the standard term used for the approaches in question. Hopefully with this misunderstanding cleared up, we can move on to a sober evaluation of the views of relevant scientists in general, ''and'' others with relevant expertise.
*This books is unusual because there is one current book and about 5 or so books printed from the 1946 version which is a total of about 6 different publishers. TatSat is suggesting that we take down the publisher SRF's cover and I agree to that because I think that all 6 publishers and future ones because there will be more, need to be considered on this page and since they are not present, we need to expand to include them as well. The page itself is titled Autobiography of a Yogi with no particular edition mentioned. So I am agreeing with one of TatSat's prior suggestions to just put Yogananda picture there instead. I have the same sepia type picture but with a better resolution I would like to add. Considering the unusual situation of having the first edition in public domain and therefore the number of publishers already in existence this seems like the only reasonable and fair thing to do.] (]) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
--] (]) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:oh, and just quickly, , and (regarding the opinions of relevant scientists and other experts).
Hello everyone, I'm Mr. Stradivarius, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. This doesn't give me any special power or privileges - my role here is to guide you towards a compromise, not to make binding decisions about content. I have read through the discussion here and on the talk page, and first I want to echo what Sitush has been saying about ]. Personal attacks are ''never'' acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and if we are going to successfully resolve this dispute we need to stop them right now. From this point on, I would like all the involved editors to avoid talking about each other at all. Talking about the ''edits'' that another editor has made is fine, but speculating about another editor's motivations or affiliations is not. Can you all agree to abide by this for the duration of this dispute?
:The Tom Shakespeare chapter is in an edited collection published by Routledge, which the original reference made quite clear, and was included merely to provide a clear and authoritative account of the ].
:The Dwyer et al paper provides a thorough exploration of the relationship between neurodiversity and the social model of disability, and gives considerable insight into the views of relevant stakeholders (autistic people, professionals, family members and so on; the paper breaks this down in detail).
:The description of what the "autism rights movement" says about disability in the current lead is unambiguously wrong. ] (]) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:While they are not the direct publishers, the ''American Psychological Association'' among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists.
:For example, the :
:"The American Psychological Association has members with significant expertise in the scientific areas relevant to the DSM, and we have urged them to take part in the DSM revision efforts. We are encouraged that many psychologists are making meaningful contributions to the process as individuals, as members of the DSM-5 Task Force and work groups, and through the divisions of the American Psychological Association."
:The C in NICE does not stand for "clinical"; it is the ], where we produce guidelines that concern matters beyond clinically related efforts. NICE guidelines for ASD do focus more on diagnosis, management, accommodations and clinical advice (but not to the exclusion of other contexts), but I am not relying solely on NICE national guidelines but other reputable sources as well that cover other subfields and contexts. These show how the terminology is not valid exclusively in a medical nor a clinical context.
:Beyond this, we should not be relying on the name of a guideline developer or public health body or even their overarching publication to contextualise it. This is very misleading. Yes, the D in ICD stands for ''diseases'' but it encapsulates conditions that are not diseases, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, thereby disqualifying the context you are interpreting through the name. Such names are often made as a matter of convenience or sustained due to complicity that would otherwise arise.
:The International Guidelines of ASD from ESCAP cover: "prevalence, socio/environmental considerations, prognosis in autism, assessments in adulthood, provide access to full and effective participation and inclusion in society, common co‑occurring conditions, early markers of autism, individual rights, making the environment more “autism friendly”, transition to adulthood, social skills, naturalistic learning/development, treatments for co-occurring conditions"
:Therefore, it is far from limited to a medical context. This is true for many of the other citations I gave - some of which do not even mention medical topics - and the quotes I used to demonstrate this (see the two lists I linked in my statement).
:While it's sometimes obfuscated with other, more overarching terms like "clinical", according to Oxford Languages, medical means: "relating to the science or practice of medicine." While I am fluent, English isn't my first language, so I apologise if it's in fact synonymous with "clinical" or something alike, but I've always thought of "medical" as referring to "medicine" and not a specific, more overarching context.
:It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to conduct medical or clinical interventions. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD. ] (]) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi ], I'm wondering if you'd find WP's discussion of "]" to be helpful. It still seems that you're interpreting/using it in a sense that's narrower than its actual meaning. "Clinical" (when used in phrases like "clinical diagnosis," "clinical research," and "clinical evidence") means that the work involves direct observation of a patient. So "clinical" overlaps significantly with "medical," as the patient is most often someone interacting with the medical system (e.g., a doctor's patient, a hospital patient). When you talk about the DSM as a diagnostic manual, who do you envision doing the diagnosis of ASD? (Pediatricians? neurologists? psychologists? members of some other group?) ] (]) 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you, @]; and thank you, @], for finally addressing the question of what you think 'medical' means. I hope you are starting to see why I have been pressing you to define terms that are at the centre of disagreements here: I think there is an ambiguity in the English terms ''medical'' and ] that has been tripping you up.
:::Yes, 'medical' refers to medicine, but usually in the sense of ''''what doctors do'''<nowiki/>', ''not'' the '] which specifically promotes ] when ] or consumed in some way' ]. I hope you can see how this makes sense of many of the claims you have been arguing with. There has obviously been some arguing at cross-purposes happening, as I figured there must have been.
:::And you are right, of course, that the C in NICE no longer stands for Clinical - I did know that they'd changed their name at some point, but obviously the old acronym was lodged deep in my brain, and I forgot in the moment. ] (]) 07:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@], @], @], @], just writing to let you all know that I appreciate your replies here, sorry for the delays in being able to reply to many of your comments ] (]) 01:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you, Oolong, for clarifying the meaning and connotations of that term. I do now see how I have been obfuscating the word to refer to medicine itself too much. More broadly, it can refer to the examination to assess a person's mental state/health as well, which would include diagnosis. ] (]) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::<quote>'''''"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it."'''''</quote> '''I do not agree that the current Misplaced Pages version reflects that.''' Discussions to much regarding causes, prognosis, treatments etc. revolve around medicalization and intervention centered weight in the topic.
::The current version of the article revolves around pathology and promotes behavioral suppression.
::It feels like the other viewpoints, other consensus, and especially necessary details on AAC and social support has not received sufficient importance. The actually helpful things are critically missing from the article.
::] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for acknowledging this.
:::::In your position I would want to apologise to @] and @], ] ] you persistently, angrily dismissed based on this misunderstanding. Your call, though, obviously.
:::::One small point here, just in case of possible future misunderstandings: it doesn't just refer to the ''examination''; as one article puts it, "] is the field of health and healing. It includes nurses, doctors, and various specialists. It covers diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, medical research, and many other aspects of health."
:::::] (]) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::<small>In case anyone is confused: Oolong's comment is a ], and not to Rit Rajarshi, even though it is located after it.</small> ] (]) 21:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I didn’t "angrily dismiss" anyone’s points. In fact, the discussion you cite was about the degree to which the global scientific consensus pertains to the various subfields in ASD. I provided ample evidence to show how the terminology is applicable to many subfields and contexts that are not medical, diagnostic or clinical. This is consistent with the broader definition of "medical" that I have acknowledged, as supported by the references and quotes I cited; so, bringing this up is irrelevant.
::::::More generally, the were a number of misrepresentations and false accusations of strawmen fallacies in that talk page to which I constructively pointed out. At no point did I use insults, ad hominem attacks or other rhetoric to express some sort of "anger". I also don't appreciate you apologising to people on my behalf. Your reply just seems to be attempting to elicit some sort of response from me, so I'll just leave this at the comments I have provided already. ] (]) 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you, you are perfectly correct. I now see how the term has at least two meanings, one which refers more specifically to medicine itself or its connotations while it can also refer to examining the health or status of a person and thus encapsulates diagnosis more broadly. So indeed, psychologists diagnosing ASD can be thought of under "medical", at least in contexts where the term is prompted I guess. Thanks! ] (]) 00:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::For the ICD and "diseases", I think we can give much better examples of non-disease medical conditions. Consider:
::* ICD-10 , normal ]
::* ICD-10 , ]
::* ICD-10 , constitutional ]
::* ICD-10 , any ordinary ]
::If you want to consider things that run on a spectrum from normal to abnormal, then consider:
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::] (]) 08:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks, that’s quite right :) ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The key word in the above post is, again, ''medical.'' ] (]) 08:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Do you think that being hungry is ''medical''? Or being frightened by dangerous things? ] (]) 22:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::oh, is hunger in the ICD as well?
::::::you didn't mention that ] (]) 09:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::In ICD-11, the code is MG43.9 if hunger is increased intermittently, and VV00 if you're just adding a note that something else happens when the person is hungry.
:::::::The point is that "in the ICD" and "actually a disease" are separate but overlapping ideas. ] (]) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] <quote>'''''"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it."''''' </quote> Do you really think the current version reflect that sufficiently? I don't think it reflects that way. ] (]) 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


I believe that a scientific consensus exists, but it is not Dimitry's version of a consensus. The present scientific consensus is that there are two current models of autism recognised by the scientific community, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both have a substantial weight of scientific publications behind them, plus a significant number of papers and books have been published examining their respective merits in side-to-side comparisons. As I have shown, the two models are not entirely incompatible and a number of experts advocate that the application of a selective combination of both models should be used to elucidate both theoretical and practical aspects of autism. On Misplaced Pages both models need to be reported in an equal and dispassionate manner, this is how an encyclopaedia should function. An encyclopaedia needs to reflect the reality of scholarship on any subject. A treatment of a contentious subject that does not do this, should not be a part of any encyclopaedia. ] (]) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Now, about the content. I see two basic issues in this dispute - the first is which image we should use in the infobox at the top of the article, and the second is how we cover the controversies about the book in the article itself. (Let me know if there are any issues that I have missed.) I propose that we deal with these issues one by one, starting with the issue of which image to use in the infobox. After reading through all the suggestions for the image, the one that made most sense to me was to use the original 1946 cover. And when I say the original cover, I mean the cover of the very first edition that was actually available in the year 1946, not the cover of a reprint made later by another publisher who merely said "this is the original edition". To me, the original 1946 cover seems the most representative of the topic as a whole, and using it would avoid any problems about Misplaced Pages appearing to favour one publisher over another. Does everyone think that using the original 1946 cover is a reasonable suggestion? Let me know your thoughts below. Best regards — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


:Is the neurodiversity model meant to be scientific, strictly speaking? For example, to exclude ] as a way of knowing things about the world?
:Hello Mr. Stradivarius - This situation is unusual in that this 1946 1st edition book is in the ''public domain'' and there are at least ''5 publishers'' offering this book each with there ''own cover''. In the book offered by the 6th editor, subsequent edits were added as requested by the author and were not able to be added until many years later even after his death. This book is somewhat different from the 1946 versions so to use the 1st edition cover would not represent this publisher or for that matter the 4 other publishers.
:I'm not sure how we can have a scientific consensus that a non-scientific model is valid. It would make more sense to care about what the relevant non-scientific scholars say about their non-scientific model. Scientists should not be trying to pass judgment on whether historians, philosophers, ethicists, etc. are correct.
:Perhaps you mean something like "biologists acknowledge that the ] exist and are relevant to understanding autism"? ] (]) 08:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Your premise is fallacious. If a concept is repeatedly examined, researched and discussed in scholarly publications by scientists, then it is scientific. The concept and use of the word 'neurodiversity was first used in an academic setting in a thesis of 1998, by sociologist ], it has been in the domain of academic scholarship ever since. I see no functional distinction between scholarly work produced by medics, sociologists and scientists, all are in the public domain and are open to criticism from peers. All are valid sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. Baron-Cohen was trained as a psychologist, but has worked on a subject that has a large genetic element. I was initially trained as a zoologist, but worked on the genetics of infectious human diseases. Nit-picking and asserting baseless inferences on relative merit between what is science, what is medicine, what is psychology, what is sociology in relation to a subject that is relevant to all these disciplines is fundamentally pointless. ] (]) 10:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Academic" does not mean "scientific". Science can happen outside of academia, and academia covers non-scientific subjects. Scientists also get to be interested in non-scientific subjects. International peace isn't a scientific concept just because Einstein wrote about it.
:::The concept of neurodiversity can be ''academic'' without necessarily being ''scientific''. We might have a ''scholarly'' or ''academic'' consensus without necessarily having a ''scientific'' one. ] (]) 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The only prerequisite for the use of references in Misplaced Pages, is that they are reputable. The idea of a Misplaced Pages article on a subject such as autism being entirely or primarily dependent on 'scientific' sources is erroneous. This is my point. Autism has many facets, clinical, psychological, neurological, genetics, lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc. etc. All of these facets are relevant and reputable academic sources from all should be treated equally - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a scientific textbook. I am a professional scientist (now retired) and I find the fetishization of 'science', displayed by some editors here, deeply illogical when applied to a subject that has many non-scientific aspects.. ] (]) 10:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree that ] is a problem, but I'm not the one asserting that there is a "scientific" consensus about a model based on "lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc." ] (]) 22:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The reference to fetishization was not aimed at you. However, it has bedevilled moving the article towards a more holistic and inclusive treatment of autism. ] (]) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Neurodiversity is a way of interpreting scientific findings (among other things). It's scientific in exactly the same sense that looking at autism as a disorder is scientific: they're both about how we interpret empirical findings, what kinds of things we look for, what kinds of evidence we consider.
::It's not ''non''-scientific, but it ''is'' philosophical, and political - just as the medical model of autism is. It's a ], in the Kunhnian sense.
::Your question provoked me to write , exploring it in a little more depth (but it's still only about 700 words, roughtly a 3-minute read). ] (]) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Philosophy and politics are non-sciences. If neurodiversity is philosophical and political, then it is also ].
:::I read your blog post. I (think I) understand that you believe your autism is not a disorder. But I want to know if you think that everyone with autism has a non-disorder form of autism. So: ] had autism. He died because his house caught on fire, and he couldn't figure out how to escape, even with help. Did he have a form of autism that (unlike yours) actually is a disorder, or do you think his autism was still not a disorder and there was some unknown but non-autism reason why he couldn't walk out of the house when he needed to? ] (]) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why can't it have scientific aspects, philosophical aspects, and political aspects? Seems to me that there can be both political and philosophical aspects to the work of a natural scientist or social scientist. ] (]) 23:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think it could, but Oolong asserts that {{xt|It's ''not'' non-scientific}}. When we're talking about ordinary medical practice ("what doctors do"), about half of it is ] – and half of it is not. I have seen doctors be offended at any suggestion that "the art and practice of medicine" is not True™ Science. It is at best an ], and the ordinary, everyday experience involves a lot of non-science. There is nothing "scientific" about telling a patient that beer and doughnuts are not a healthful diet, but they like to believe that they are Scientists™. Perhaps it is somewhat similar with the neurodiversity movement: our culture values science, and our views on neurodiversity are good views, so our views need to be called "scientific". It doesn't involve anything like the ] – there is no scientific experiment you can run to determine whether all people have equal moral value, or whether people should be treated with respect and accorded autonomy – but these days, we all want all of our treasured beliefs to be considered "scientific". Two millenia ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "philosophical"; two centuries ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "religious". "Scientific" is just a word we use in this century to say that my views are correct. ] (]) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'll have to think a bit more about how I classify things as "scientific" or not. Research in the natural and social sciences is scientific work. Interpreting such research might or might not be scientific work, depending on whether you're digging into the details (especially with an eye towards how it could influence or give you insight into your own research / how it fits into the body of research in the discipline) or only accepting the surface results. Some physicians carry out medical research, but they're a minority. Ideally, all physicians interpret medical research, but I don't know whether they really dig in unless they're researchers themselves. Scientific research certainly isn't limited to the scientific method. Personally, I don't treat all my treasured beliefs as scientific; some of my most treasured beliefs are values. ] (]) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Science, especially on humans, inescapably has political and philosophical dimensions. This regularly comes to the fore during a ].
::::Is ] ''non-scientific''? We're not talking about a ] (hence the inapplicability of the scientific method) but we're talking ''about'' science. Philosophy of science is something that scientists ought to take seriously, especially in more contentious areas of science, to avoid making epistemological errors.
::::Here's a fun one: Is the ''scientific method'' scientific? There's no scientific experiment you can do to determine if it's the best way of approaching empirical questions, is there?
::::It is interesting to note that ], who Dmitri likes to cite as the authority who resolved the question of what disorders are and how they relate to diversity, is not really any kind of scientist, ''certainly'' not primarily - he's a professor of social work, who works interdisciplinarily and has therapy experience. To quote :
::::<blockquote>He argues for a middle ground position in which the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design" </blockquote>
::::I don't think anyone with more than a very superficial understanding of the processes behind the production of the DSM (or ICD) would deny that they are heavily political. . .
:::: philosopher ] on neurodiversity and science:
::::<blockquote>Accompanying this, a scientific paradigm has also been emerging, albeit in a somewhat piecemeal way. More neurodivergent individuals have become involved in research, and more neurotypical researchers have begun to listen to neurodivergent perspectives. This is beginning to change how researchers formulate hypotheses and produce knowledge. Among other things, researchers increasingly recognize neurodivergent strengths alongside limitations, study cognitive problems as relational rather than as arising from individual deficits, and view neurodivergent disablement and distress based on a social model of disability rather than a medical model.</blockquote>
::::I've possibly linked all of these before, but here are a series of peer-reviewed articles talking about what neurodiversity means for science: , , , , and .
::::In short, there's no 'pure science' when it comes to the study of human difference, and it's not clear what can be achieved by trying to disentangle 'science' from 'non-science' in this context. ] (]) 09:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So why did you say that "it's ''not'' non-science", if you say here that of course it is (or has aspects of) non-science? ] (]) 23:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Because ''the study of humans inescapably has non-scientific elements''. I thought I was clear about that. Science can be do''ne using the neurodiversity paradigm.'' This being the case, claiming that neurodiversity is non-scientific is misleading, at best.
::::::You don't think that psychiatry is purely scientific, do you? ] (]) 09:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Or is your position that psychiatry, having philosophical and political dimensions, is also ''non-science''? ] (]) 09:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for your reply, the references, and the thought experiment, but I'm afraid you are arguing with an egregious misrepresentation of my citations. I have not been relying on the studies by Jerome Wakefield. I did, however, reference this author as a historical account of when the definition may have ''originated''. In my comments, I referred to the first International Consensus Statement on ADHD by scientists (Barkley et al., 2002), and the updated International Consensus Statement (Faraone et al., 2021-2024) endorsing the model. There is also an Updated European Consensus Statement (Kooji et al., 2019).
:::::Faraone et al. is coauthored by 80 leading researchers, its contents are endorsed by 403 additional experts, along with numerous professional groups and guideline developers, across 27 countries and 6 continents (Supplemental Tables), thereby demonstrating a global scientific consensus.
:::::As concluded in the consensus statements, this model for determining a neurodevelopmental disorder to be valid is ''scientifically established''. Both reference sources such as guidelines internationally that the model is based upon, which encapsulate autism spectrum disorder.
:::::As I have written before, I agree that the DSM Committees occasionally enact on policy or other reasons at the expense of scientific evidence and even scientific consensus. My colleagues and I have even personally dealt with such issues, so I am very well aware of this nuance. This is why I have not relied on the DSM but many reputable sources from around the world. In my experience, incidents where the DSM fails to reflect the science are usually evident with the contradictory consensus in the field. ] (]) 01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please link your references. ] (]) 09:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that some people here think of 'neurodiversity' as some sort of fuzzy and trendy sociological term. In reality it is a shorthand term that researchers, including geneticists and other scientists, use for a concept. This concept being, "The phenotypic expression of natural variation in human brain architecture and physiology, largely determined by genetic causality; this genetic causality itself due to natural variation in alleles that are found widely throughout the general population". As such, the concept is scientific, but far too long winded not to require a specific and shorter term for general use. ] (]) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:This is a bit complicated, because the word has multiple (closely related) meanings. ]'s is a useful source on this...
:Another important point is that one of the publishers created a duplicate of the 1st edition cover so by posting the first edition cover, Misplaced Pages creates an atmosphere of partiality or favoritism. I am under the impression that Misplaced Pages encourages impartial, neutral pages. The only way I can see to avoid this is post a picture of the author instead.
:"'''Neurodiversity''' is the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species" (pretty much what you said) but we also talk about the '''neurodiversity paradigm''' (which entails seeing this diversity in broadly positive terms, on similar lines to ], of which neurodiversity is strictly a subset) and the '''neurodiversity movement''' (a human rights movement based around these ideas).
:See ] & Pellicano's for further exploration of the political dimensions of the idea (they note that in practice, these distinctions are not always made clearly or using this exact vocabulary). Dwyer's article in the same] is also worth a look. ] (]) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Urselius, we could give the same definition for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. "Natural variation" is not "good variation".
::The Wakefield definition above ("requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design") resonates more with me, but it would require autism to be defined as something that harms the person, which conflicts with the neurodiversity paradigm of insisting that autism be seen in "broadly positive terms".
::So I ask this specific question again: ]'s autism prevented him from walking out of a burning building, even with his mother trying to help him walk out of his bedroom, down the stairs, and out the door to safety. They both ''died'' as a result of his autism. Does your concept of autism allow his autism to be disorder that ''actually killed him'', or is his autism just a "natural" and "normal" difference? ] (]) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The first question is how many autistic people are unable to leave a burning house and the second is how many autistic people's houses burn. Being tall can also kill one if one bumps one's head very badly into something. Being a woman can kill one because of complications at childbirth. Being homosexual can kill one because of the higher risk of HIV transmission. So if dying for such reasons as the above mentioned is only a very rare event than we would not consider the thing a disorder or disease. ] (]) 00:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] There is a global scientific consensus that ASD is a valid neurodevelopmental disorder, as indicated by international guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews and standardised diagnostic criteria etc. around the world. (for references, see ]). This is not synonymous with disease. To qualify for a disorder two criteria typically must be scientifically satisfied (International Consensus Statement on ADHD, 2002; International Consensus Statement, 2021-2024). First, there must be evidence establishing neurological variation (e.g., dysfunction, deficit, deviation) in a trait universal to humans. Second, this variation must cause significant impairment in major life activities and/or ''significantly'' predispose to increased morbidity and earlier mortality.
::::Homosexuality, transgender and left-handedness are examples of neurological variation that do not meet the second criteria and thus are not disorders. Impairment experienced by these, if any, is attributable to societal oppression and discrimination rather than the variation itself. In contrast, ASD does meet the second criteria. It ''significantly'' predisposes to injury, morbidity and earlier mortality and so these statistics are relevant as they are not just some extraordinarily rare occurrences.
::::''Note: Some commenters have opined that the citations supporting the aforementioned scientific consensus are localised to a medical context. I do not agree with this characterisation. Please feel free to judge the pertinence of these citations for yourself.'' ] (]) 00:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You seem not to have understood the full scope of the medical model. The medical model of disability proposes that the disability is rooted in the individual (which is then classified as a disorder or disease) and the desired outcome is to normalise the person to become as similar as possible to people without the „disorder“ regardless of whether medications to reduce features of it are currently available or not. Because of this focus it is often called the „individualistic model“. If a person classified as disabled has difficulties in the current environment and people assess these difficulties to stem from a „disorder“ within the person instead of the environment then it is a viewpoint from the individualistic or medical model even if no medical treatment or medical professional is involved. The social model, in contrast, asserts that the disability stems from an unaccommodating environment. Social-relational models acknowledge that there can be aspects of the disability that are best ascribed to the condition itself, but, as Dwyer points out , „neurodivergence sometimes comes with strengths (Carter et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2019), whereas social-relational models may, by drawing on the vocabulary of the social model and its use of the term “impairment” to refer to the characteristics of the disabled person, risk implying that neurodivergence is synonymous with impairment/reduced function.“. The neurodiversity paradigm proposes that autism is a disability but not a disorder. ] (]) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::ASD impairs people’s ability to do things that they enjoy, to take care of themselves and their daily needs, function in their relationships with family and friends, and in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society. Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising and erases the harms and experiences that directly result from people’s various cognitive impairments. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The claim that it does this "in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society" is completely unsupported. Nothing in the DSM criteria is unrelated to society. ] (]) 09:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Nope. Major life domains required for diagnosis to establish impairment can include self-sufficiency and self-care, such as through ineffective maintenance of personal hygiene or the distress experienced by restricted, preservative interests and mental preoccupation. These are not necessarily related to society at all, and are valid functional domains for consideration in meeting the diagnostic criteria ] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah autism can be troubling by itself but it would be stupid to say the environment has nothing to do with it, I'm leaning towards the ] and saying; if the world was less loud ] would be gone. That's one example of a problem that the world makes. Maybe both is true but idk why we were talking about this -- I'm so behind. ] (]) 12:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No, that's not true. If the world were silent, then sensory overload would still exist for people whose sensory problems focus on lights, smells, textures, tastes, etc.
::::::::This is part of the philosophical aspect of what we're trying to decide. At its loudest, thunder can match a rock concert. If someone's nervous system can't handle the noise of a windstorm or thunder is the problem in that person's limitations, or in the fact that thunderstorms exist? When an individual and nature don't fit, evolutionary biology would say that it's the individual who has the problem, not nature. Perhaps the neurodiversity paradigm says that the person is fine and it's nature's fault for being so noisy? Or simply ignores how terrifying thunderstorms are for many autistic kids, because that doesn't fit into the model of the kid being fine and other people causing the problems? ] (]) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::1) Society can provide accommodations even for natural events like thunderstorms (insulated home, earplugs, earmuffs etc.).
:::::::::2) Invoking evolution as an argument for the disorder view represents an ]. Just because people with certain characteristics had a lower chance of surviving in the past and the environment didn't provide accommodations (observation), it doesn't mean it is correct do assume that it is the individual who should change (normative judgement). ] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::"Society can provide" a lot of things, but total protection from the noise of a major storm is not one of them. Based on California's recent experience, we can't even provide a decent prediction of where a tornado might form. I heard that the tornado warning was issued for 50 miles away from where it actually appeared. Good luck building a sound-proof bunker when the tornado's already headed your way.
::::::::::I mention evolutionary biology because Oolong quotes Wakefield above as saying that this is the perspective used in the definition of disorder: "the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design".
::::::::::We have "harm, assessed according to social values": The person is extremely distressed by the sound of a storm, and society's values include minimizing distress.
::::::::::We have "dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design": This isn't a trait that has anything survival benefit to the person.
::::::::::Given a definition that says harm+dysfunction==disorder, then this is a disorder. You might not ''like'' that, and you might prefer that it were instead called something more "positive", but it still ''is'' a disorder (according to that definition). ] (]) 07:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::''Lots'' of people (and other animals) are scared of thunderstorms - and distressed by all sorts of other stimuli. It's not at all clear that this is automatically a problem; you have certainly not demonstrated dysfunction here. There are indeed evolutionary reasons why animals are distressed by some stimuli. For more on the evolutionary front, please see . ] (]) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I doubt that lots of healthy people are distressed by the noise of thunderstorms. It's not unusual in children, but a significant level of distress is unusual in adults. Perhaps it's just my own circle, but I can't think of a single adult who finds thunder distressing and isn't autistic. (I would also expect this to be experienced by people with some other neurological problems and some people with PTSD, but I don't know anyone with that combination.) How about you? How many neurotypical, non-traumatized adults can you think of who meltdown from sensory overload during a thunderstorm? ] (]) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Claiming that "Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising" is in fact trivialising. There is nothing trivial at all about environmental mismatches. They are often intensely distressing and disabling.
:::::::Many, '''many''' grave harms and bad experiences are clearly avoidable by adjusting the environment in identifiable ways. Nobody's harms or experiences are being erased by saying that they arise from a mismatch between the person and their environment.
:::::::The idea that any of these harms and experiences, the reality of which is not in question, are ''direct'' results of somebody's cognitive makeup, and hence ''impossible to prevent'' without changing the person, appears to be pure speculation. Perhaps it is true, but I for one have never had experiences that didn't depend on my environment in some way. It's hard to imagine what kind of empirical evidence could plausibly demonstrate that a particular class of experiences has ''nothing to do with the experiencer's environment'', but if you believe you have such evidence, by all means share it here. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::First, the fact that an impairment may be ''implicated'' in an environment does not translate that the environment is therefore the ultimate cause of the impairment. Theoretically, eliminating all other humans may alleviate the impairments people with social anxiety disorder experience, but this is a completely unreasonable, practically impossible approach that is further complicated by the fact that effective social interaction is a biological adaptation of humans, as well as that they often ''want'' to interact with others without feeling anxious. Thus, when the adaptation becomes disrupted enough that it can no longer function effectively, it can be - and is - viewed as an inherent impairment to the disorder.
::::::::Similarly, ASD can impair people's functioning including in occupational functioning, cohabiting with others, in their relationship with family and friends, and other domains important to them, in ways where the responsibility for reducing an impairment cannot be ''entirely'' delegated to the surrounding people or environment.
::::::::ASD causes difficulties not just with doing the things people ''must'' do (our obligations to society), but the things they ''want'' to do (our agency to do the things we find fulfilling in life). As such, the ''potential'' for a person to select a less impairing environment is not a valid argument for attributing the impairment away from an individual's symptoms. Major life domains affected by ASD also include activities such as self-sufficiency and self-care, where one cannot neglect them and simultaneously be unimpaired. These are valid functional domains for meeting the diagnostic criteria.
::::::::ASD also impairs functioning in ways ''unrelated'' to a society and even an external environment, such as with the distress experienced by unwanted, restricted and preservative interests and mental preoccupation.
::::::::Natural variation in neurological makeup is not necessarily variation with ''purpose''. Natural variation is a fact of existence, but nature does not seek to moralise. ] (]) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This is interesting, because relying overmuch on the idea that "society can provide" whatever it takes to eliminate disability sometimes ignores the agency and desires of the affected person. For example: In the US, two-thirds of autistic teenagers without intellectual disability want to learn how to drive. Only half of them actually earn a drivers' license over five years. <small>(For those outside the US, our driving instruction process is ''very'' lenient by international standards. The pass rate for the general population in the US is around 98%; almost anyone who actually wants to get a driver's license can do so easily, and usually in less than one year. If you're 18, the usual rule is: take a quick multiple-choice test, have a friend or family member teach you how to drive, come back as soon as you're ready to show the examiner that you know how to drive. If you're 15.5 years old, the process is a little more involved, but not much. About half of teens pass the practical driving test on their first try.)</small>
:::::::::Society can provide alternatives, like bus service and family members who will drive you.
:::::::::But what if you actually want to have a driver's license, and you want to be able to drive independently? Society can't provide that if you don't have the necessary skills (e.g., multi-tasking, interpreting others' intentions, knowing where their body/vehicle is located in space, not being distracted by a leaf that lands on the windshield, not being consumed by anxiety when other drivers don't do what you expect...). Society isn't disabling people by refusing to give them a license when they don't have the skills, and society can't provide the necessary skills to everyone (autistic or otherwise) who doesn't have them and wants to be allowed to drive. ] (]) 08:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you, you make very good points. I sometimes see this as politically driven that people should partake in societal activities according to their ''abilities'' so functional impairment is reduced, irrespective of peoples' personal agency, autonomy, and aspirations. I find it telling how forms of biological variation that are not disorders, such as sexuality, to which ASD is frequently compared to, do not lead to impairment in ways that conflict with the above. The impairment, if any, is attributable to society because it's usually in the form of discrimination and oppression, which by eliminating obviously wouldn't conflict with what the affected person would want, nor could it reach a degree of impracticality or unreasonableness. People with ASD also experience such oppression but this is not the primary or only impairment. ] (]) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The societal stress is not always due to DELIBERATE discrimination but due to cognitive and communication mismatch (])
:::::::::::] (]) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"How many people's houses burn" is not relevant. I've seen estimates that suggest perhaps as many as 30% of diagnosed autistic people, and at least 10% of all (diagnosed and undiagnosed) autistic people have impairments that could predictably put them in dangerous situations or prevent them from receiving help in escaping from a dangerous situation.
::::Autistic people, on average, have significantly (some estimates say 20 to 40 years) shorter lifespans than neurotypical people, and accidental deaths are one of the biggest causes of the disparity. ] (]) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::1) The shorter lifespan has many other reasons, especially suicide and barriers in healthcare, as well as an increased risk for many co-occurring conditions that reduce health. Please give me citations if you think that the thing you mentioned is a major contributor.
:::::2) Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations is not a reason to pathologise autism as a whole. First, individuals without these risks should then not be seen as disordered. Second, not the whole presentation of being autistic should then be seen as a disorder but only the aspects that lead to the risk. Remember that autism is most likely a clinical construct that was built for practical reasons without a single underlying cause, so there is no need to encompass the entire autistic spectrum here. ] (]) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Per your request in 1), here's a handful:
::::::*
::::::* "We also found that deaths in individuals with autism were nearly 3 times as likely as were deaths in the general population to be caused by '''unintentional injury'''."
::::::* "Elevated death rates were observed for several causes, including seizures and '''accidents'''"
::::::* "Associated medical disorders (including epilepsy with cognitive impairment) and '''accidents''' accounted for most of the deaths"
::::::* "The profile of the top causes of death for the ASD cohorts and the general population differed. The leading cause of death for those with ASD only was deaths caused by injury and poisoning...death from '''accidents''' was prominent specific causes of death for both those with and without ID."
::::::* "These findings illustrate that poor social communication may well predispose autistic individuals to '''accidental death'''"
::::::Suicide is an example of subgroup differences: autistic people (especially females) without intellectual disabilities have a higher than average rate of suicide, and autistic people with intellectual disabilities have a lower than average rate of suicide.
::::::For your 2), I suggest that "Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations" is a good reason to not de-pathologize autism ''completely''. Though looking at the sources above, the bigger risk is probably choking (suffocating on inedible objects) and drowning (even if you really like swimming and really, really, really want to go swimming Right Now, not every bit of beautiful water is safe for swimming). ] (]) 06:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::While I agree that having a higher risk of dying by accident is a sub-optimal thing, I don't think calling autism a disorder is the right response to this.
:::::::Children in general are far more vulnerable than adults, especially but not only when left alone. Nevertheless, being a child is seen as normal instead of a disorder. Even every person has a certain risk for an accident that is not seen as indicative of a disorder. I don’t think we are obliged to draw quite an arbitrary line there where we think a non-normal condition has increased the risk, especially because the percentage of autistic people dying by accident is still pretty low even if increased in comparison to non-autistic people. People have vulnerabilities and some people have more vulnerabilities than others, especially disabled people. Neurodiversity advocates argue for a non-pathologising disability framework that still allows for some interventions for the individual. Leadbitter et al. mention functional communication (whether it be spoken or some other means of communication), anxiety, inertia and “intolerance of uncertainty” as potential intervention targets . Reducing risks for accidents could also reasonably be seen as a desired outcome without trying to make the person non-autistic, just as reducing accident risks for people in general is seen as desirable.
:::::::The main reason why autism is classified as a disorder and researchers are trying to find a cure is the ascription of “deficits” in social interactions in daily live to the individual instead of viewing these difficulties as stemming from the interaction between the mostly non-autistic environment and the autistic person, the increased risk for accidents is only a marginal reason.
:::::::The problem is that all kinds of things (pain, support needs, vulnerabilities, prejudiced assumptions about normality) are lumped together under the terms disorder/disease. I would like to separate these things. If something causes pain and a cure is considered the right response, then it is a disorder or disease. If it means the person has higher support needs or vulnerabilities than others without necessarily wanting a “cure”, then it is a disability. If it is just a violation of prejudicial assumptions about “normal” functioning, then it is nothing of these and just a feature holders of which are discriminated against. Autism, in my view, combines aspects of the latter two without being a disorder to be “cured”. ] (]) 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We might not be "obliged" to notice that a 300% rate of dying from injuries, but I think we should. This is a statistically abnormal deviation in the rate premature death across all ages, not an "arbitrary" line.
::::::::This is "autism + intellectual disability = probably won't see their 40th birthday" level of risk. People with Down syndrome live longer than that (the median is around age 55–60), and DS is notorious for premature death due to heart disease and leukemia. Autistic people ''without'' intellectual disability have a median survival that is not much older than DS.
::::::::If something causes premature death, then a cure – or at least an effective treatment – seems like the right response to me. Some of these deaths happen because the now-dead person had those " “deficits” in social interactions", where "social interaction" means "understanding what that person means when they're saying 'Stop that, that's dangerous!' or 'No, we can't go swimming here. It's dangerous! Let's get your swimsuit and go to a real swimming pool.'". ] (]) 08:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, in my view 'disorder' remains an unhelpful framing. What do you think it adds, specifically? Autism is a ].
:::We can't prevent autism, and there are strong arguments to say that we shouldn't try. There are no actual treatments, but we have seen a whole parade of harmful quack treatments, many of which continue to be promoted.
:::Meanwhile, there are many, ''many'' things we can do to make life better for autistic people, at the societal level - for ''all'' autistic people. ] (]) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that framing it as a disorder adds the understanding that autism is ''sometimes'' harmful. Autism is harmful when, despite all feasible efforts, the person's needs still cannot be met. We could theoretically ban fireworks to prevent noise from bothering noise-sensitive autistic people. We cannot ban the noise of thunder, tornadoes, or hurricanes.
::::You say that "many, many" harms and bad experiences are avoidable. My point is that "many, many" is less than "all", and the ones that you have already admitted are unavoidable is where the "disorder" exists. ] (]) 21:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I usually hesitate to mention my personal experiences but I feel compelled to do so here, which I hope sharing may help clarify the ''why'' it being a disorder is necessary. It is simply the case that many of us experience serious impairment and distress in some form or other, in aspects of our lives that are dear to us, as a direct result of our ASD symptoms. This has been validated scientifically, and we cannot tolerate a movement or advocacy that tells everyone that the hurt and struggle they're experiencing is really just caused by their modern society being shit and that the issues caused by their neurology would be solved if society were somehow magically better. As someone with mild ASD myself, in my view modern capitalist societies are shit, but also the architecture of our brain doesn't necessarily work the way we want it to.
::::Here's one example: I find strong and unpredictable sensory stimuli physically and mentally painful. Coming into contact with a piece of fabric can leave me overwhelmed, and it makes even the simplest of activities such as brushing my teeth far more difficult than it needs to be. There is so much tooling available, and things that can help, but there is nothing that can make up for the overwhelming effort it takes to do certain tasks and sustain that for more than a few minutes. Many of these are activities required for self-sufficiency or tasks I ''want'' to do and are directly, innately disrupted by the symptoms of ASD, and it ''hurts''. It hurts that I have so much trouble doing these things. And while I don't have ADHD or CDS, an autistic family member of mine does and can further describe the interplay of comorbidity in exacerbating such symptoms.
::::Accommodations help, but its far from perfect. It doesn't address all of our needs. There is nothing society can do to accommodate all of peoples' impairments, distress and predispositions to various adverse risks in life. This is not ultimately society's fault. It’s simply the nature of living with a condition like ASD
::::The diagnosis underscores that our neurological variation becomes impairing when sufficiently severe. Declassifying it risks eliminating or restricting access to entitlements we have fought obtaining, under a false and trivialising perception of disability or impairment being rooted ''entirely'' in a society, rather than the symptoms themselves. ] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You mentioned hygiene above. In developed countries, we tend to think of basic hygiene as a social thing: "You need to take a shower so the other kids at school won't think you stink".
:::::However, from a biomedical viewpoint, hygiene isn't primarily about the social aspect. It's about preventing skin infections. People need to wash their bodies every now and again so they don't get itchy, oozy, painful rashes. If a neurological condition makes a person ineffective at keeping their body clean (this happens in dementia, too), then this isn't just a social impairment. It's a infectious disease risk. In other words, if autism prevents someone from taking basic care of their body, it's a disorder, not an equally valid and valuable "difference". There is nothing valuable about ], nor about preventable fungal or staph infections. ] (]) 08:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's precisely the point I was trying to emphasise there, that impairment can occur irrespective of social factors or not even necessarily be implicated in society, and thus can be attributed to the symptoms directly. Thanks for your comment. ] (]) 12:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@] @] @] @] and all other users: I do not thing social model or neurodiversity deny any of the biological co-occurrences. I think this is a very bad misunderstanding both neurodiversity and social model.
:::::::''Some good logic has been given in https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/ ('''Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about Neurodiversity:''' Just because you value neurological differences doesn’t mean you’re denying the reality of disabilities).''
:::::::The problem is: The way we "frame" something as a "disease" or "disorder" inevitably comes with the consequence of a seek for cure, prevention, or erasure, or intervention.
:::::::Autism is a neurotype. It is also a part of the person's perception and worldview. We cannot ethnic cleanse the cognitive minority. Also we cannot love a version of the person (minus Autism) that does NOT exist. We cannot extinguish the things helpful for a person.
:::::::So called "Low function" Autism exists; but there are people who does not think the existing dominant neurotypical-favored pathology model is the right solution. Here is a statement from somebody:
:::::::''"i really wish there was support and validation for us 'low functioning' autistics. not for the parents but for us. im an adult. i cant take care of myself, i cant even work. i dont need articles on 'how to care for your low functioning autistic child thats so clearly a monster and youre the godsend tough #warriormom'. not only is it incredibly dehumanising but extremely unhelpful.''
::::::: ''for once id like to find something along the lines of 'youre not worthless for being a lowfunctioning adult that still lives with their parent and cant brush their teeth or bathe more than twice a month so heres some tips just to make life a bit easier'. i dont need constant reminders that the world doesnt need me"'' ] (]) 15:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@] @] @] Fishes are not "Normal" human being. Fishes can't (usually) breathe on air. Would you transplant lungs into fishes/ genetically engineer fishes? Or you would put them in water?
::::::::Autism is inherently defined as a "social interaction and communication disorder", (and I think this one matter is pretty consistent between Kanner, Asperger, Sukhareva, Gilberg, DSM/ICD versions, etc.) and "communication" cannot happen through 1 person it takes at least 2 person. If we think of only 1 "normal" communication style or modality, and describe the other as the pathological one (which inevitably imply cure or extinguish) then we only increase pain and suffering, left with zero social support and acceptance. It is not about mild severity or significant severity. It is the matter of involvement of more than one person and their cognitive pattern or communication modality.
::::::::I am not sure if here people are trying to create new definition of Autism solely based on negativity.
::::::::] (]) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::My impression is that the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable. Savant-like focus on details? That's a valuable job skill, so that's autism. Inability to brush teeth or bathe more than twice a month? That's a bad thing, so that's not autism; it must be a completely separate condition that just happens to co-occur in some people who also have autism, but it ''can't'' be autism, because if we admit that it were autism, then at least some parts of autism would be something worth preventing, curing, or treating.
:::::::::BTW, there are "disorders" that don't need prevention, treatment, or cure. For example, 80% of 80-year-old men technically have prostate cancer. But almost all of them will die from something else before the prostate cancer gets big enough to cause any problems. Framing something as a disorder does not inevitably result in demands for a cure. ] (]) 21:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] @] Neurodiversity is a political and ''not'' a scientific term; in fact, Judy Singer, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement even acknowledges this:https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html?m=1
:Unlike more scientific terminology like neurological variation, "diversity" is associated with positivity and other such connotations as well as with the broader Neurodiversity Movement. That movement is notorious for denying the scientific validity of not just ASD but other disorders such as ADHD and the necessity of treatment (pharmacological or otherwise) in favour of homogenising peoples' neurological variation. The movement also tends to misrepresent their nature by minimising impairments and overstating or incorrectly ascribing positive benefits to the conditions in order to portray them in a positive light. Their positions contradict the global scientific consensus (e.g. Faraone et al., 2021) as well as the views of millions of people with lived experience of such disorders (e.g. Cortese et al., 2024). This has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience no matter how appealing it may be to some laypeople. It’s a pity so many are adversely affected by it.. ] (]) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::As with anything else, it can only be pseudo-science if they're claiming that it's real-science in the first place. (See ] if you are interested in this subject.) ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::The assumption that Judy Singer coined the term neurodiversity is being challenged and Judy Singer didn't initiate the movement . Both the term and the movement arose out of autistic communities and weren't created by any single person. ] (]) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::We've been through this already. Besides our previous discussions, I refer you to and this very clear statement from ] which is prominently quoted in the essay ]:
::"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."
::Which of your citations directly states that all or even most scientists or scholars hold the view you are referring to? ] (]) 09:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Neurodiversity is "Hallmark of Pseudoscience"? I rather smell the pathology paradigm and all its army (usually paid and funded and supported by ) as a form of colonialism and master-slave relationship within a species.
::You might know about ] . "Science" told if a slave does not want to remain enslaved then it is a disorder.
::Brownlow, Charlotte. "Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’." Journal of Medical Humanities 31, no. 3 (2010): 243-255. can be an interesting read on this regard.
::Many neurodiversity supporters are also science lovers and also often prefer strict rationality.
::Only Autistics can say what works best for them. Neurotypical professionals and scientists aren't going to perceive the matter... best they can is to conduct surveys, take opinions, having empathy, listening to us, reading our autoethnography. Anything imposed on us outside of that causes harm. I am tired of seeing another group of people deciding what's best for Autistics. Really unhelpful and bad ideas. ] (]) 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] I greatly oppose the idea that neurodiversity is "pseudoscientific". It has a sociological or philosophical dimension as well scientific dimension. But to think it as "pseudoscience" is really sick idea. I rather think the so called "global scientific unanimous consensus" is a pseudoscientific one: because they want to look like science, but all they do is to vote and raise/ lower the various arbitrary bars much like things happen in politics and diplomacy. They don't know everything, yet they pretend they know best for us. ] (]) 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


=====What's next?=====
:Also, as time goes on there are most likely going to be more and more publishers of the 1946 version.
This discussion has been enlightening for me, in part because it has forced me to think about fundemental questions in my own field (clinical psychology) and to consider strong arguments from thoughtful, smart, experienced Wikipedians on both sides of this debate. I find myself going back and forth and back and forth again as I read through this discussion. Although I believe the article should do more to integrate insights and perspectives from the neurodiversity viewpoint, I start with the belief that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that causes suffering for people born with it (and their families), i.e., it is not merely a "difference" that society needs to accommodate. I remain hopeful that we can craft a consensus statement, in the form of a new lede for the article. Should we start work on that? -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 11:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:"suffering" breaks ]. ] (]) 12:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Because of the issues mentioned above, I cannot give my consensus to post the 1st edition cover on this page. And as Sitush pointed out, pages don't need to even have info boxes, let alone a picture. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 02:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
::The reason why I mentioned this is because it can be offensive to autistic people to say we "suffer". ] (]) 07:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you for reminding me about that word (''suffer'') being problematic. It has four or five meanings, which is part of the problem. Would it be better to say that autism causes ''distress''? <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 08:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::In this context, it means much the same thing.
::::I would suggest that the bigger issue is that it's not autism ''on its own'' that causes suffering or distress; it affects people's reactions to the environment they're in.
::::I am certainly more distressed in some situations than a non-autistic person is likely to be, but in others I am undoubtedly ''less'' distressed. Similarly, I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by, while I am baffled by the enjoyment that many seem to take in other things. ] (]) 09:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by" you mean small things everyone misses? Like when I'm on the train I like to stare out the window, kinda ] and fun. Also ] should be a ].
:::::@] I think "distress" would be better, what do you mean by suffer having like 5 meanings? What are these 5 meanings? Where were they defined? ] (]) 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::See ]. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would argue, as an autistic person myself, that though autism can be difficult to live with and be problematic, it is very largely contextual. If I am on my own or with my family and/or close friends, in a comfortable or neutral environment, I am not inconvenienced by my autism at all, neither is anyone else. This suggests to me, that it is only in my interactions with society at large that me being autistic can become a problem, either to me or other people (]). Also my autism has benefits, yes indeed. In my job as a biomedical researcher monotropism was a positive thing to posses, concentrating on my project and not being distracted by other things paid dividends. My abilities to solve problems from unusual angles was also very useful. I produced two theses, MSc and PhD, both passed without revision or correction. My autistic eye for detail also enabled me to become the 'go to person' for proof reading other people's theses, I have lost count of the number I have proofread. The article does not conspicuously engage with any beneficial aspects of autism.
:As an aside, the use of the term 'deficit' in the DSM 5 wording is largely due to US medical insurance requirements, rather than wording for clinical accuracy. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Right - I don't think anyone with any insight into autistic experiences at all would deny that related issues are "very largely contextual". In fact, it scare me to think that some might - I know there are parents out there with ''no insight'' into what causes their kids' meltdowns, trying to train them to behave differently, rather than learning to spot triggers and work out strategies for avoiding overwhelm. I know that something similar can happen with autistic people in institutions, causing whole cycles of meltdowns and ill-treatment, and that is ''chilling''.
::There are good reasons why ]'s equation 'autism + environment = outcomes' is so influential and widely quoted.
::I discussed many of the ways that autism can be a disability, despite the ''same traits'' in many cases being neutral or even advantageous in other contexts, in . Might be helpful background reading for anyone interest in this discussion.
::As for what next, @] and @] I don't think either of you have responded yet to the ] or my rough draft of a potential lead? ] (]) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Is there something about Beardon's 'autism + environment = outcomes' that is meant to be unique to autism? The same equation works for any individual with any trait. It's not even specific to humans, or animals: '] + environment = outcomes' or 'Flu virus + environment = outcomes'. ] (]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Only in the sense that for some reason, when it comes to autism, people often ''totally ignore this obvious point''.
::::It's a bit like the ] in this regard. ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, I had not seen your draft, and I apologize for missing it. I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with. // I need to stop reading this on my phone because there's no way I can track the flow of discussions when they go up and down the page. I keep expecting sequential order going down the page, but that's not how a talk page works. <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 08:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks Mark! Yes, unfortunately it's extremely hard to follow these discussions on a phone (I've found the app helps a little, but not as much as I'd like). Also, on the phone there's usually no 'reply' button for some reason??
::::It might be helpful if you'd chime in ], if you're up for it. ] (]) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Urselius, when I read through your comment, I'm left with the feeling that we're saying "When you've met one high-functioning autistic person with a PhD, then you've met every autistic person". For every autistic person like you, there's another one who can't be left unsupervised. Can we write this article in a way that doesn't erase those low-functioning, extremely high-need autistic people. It needs more than just the occasional passing reference to their existence.
::<small>Conversations like this make me wish that they'd split autism back into separate components. It probably was better for autistic people with high academic achievement when they got a completely different label, so the distinction between highly capable and talented people vs those who have no hope of living independently was obvious on paper, not just in reality.</small> ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There is a great deal of distress, exhaustion and, indeed, mental ill health in autistics who can, most of the time, fully function in society. Most of the attention, support and accommodation, however, goes to those who cannot function in society. I believe that both sets of people deserve the help that they require to live the best life they can. For some autistic people that help might include sheltered accommodation, with round the clock supervision being available. For me, it might have been to be able to take examinations away from vast halls filled with crowds of other anxious people. Or department stores not making people walk through appallingly smelly perfume departments in order to get anywhere else. Yes autism is a spectrum, people on it have a variety of problems and require a variety of support or accommodation. ] (]) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There were good reasons why psychiatrists gave up on the separate categories. Specifically, all the formulas they'd come up with to delineate these categories fell apart on closer inspection; in short, the differences between different autistic people do not appear to be categorical.
:::It is often said, and this is important, that the term 'low functioning' erases a person's autonomy, while 'high functioning' erases their difficulties.
:::There certainly are substantial differences between different autistic people (largely, but probably not exclusively, because of other co-occurring disabilities) - but also within the same autistic person at different times, and in different environments.
:::You asked if there was something special about autistic people with respect to ]'s 'golden equation' 'autism + environment = outcomes' and I suggested there wasn't, really; but it is really worth emphasising how ''huge'' the differences in a person can be depending on environment. Someone who is eloquent and capable well things are going well may lose the power of speech when things go wrong. All kinds of capabilities can be lost this way. ] is a very serious thing, and shorter-term shutdowns can also be very serious.
:::Spiky profiles are also an absolutely key concept for understanding the variability of autism. Sometimes people who can't feed themselves are quite capable of getting PhDs, with the right support. Often, people who don't obviously struggle in public barely function at all in private (you might want to read up on the 'coke bottle effect' regarding how this manifests with schoolkids). Many autistic people have much higher support needs than may be immediately obvious; many with obvious difficulties are capable of great things. ] (]) 09:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] takes the day off after big events so this is a example of how functioning can change. I think the ''DSM'' mentions how the functioning of a person can change but I'm not bothered to find it because I gotta continue programing something then sleep. ] (]) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]


=====Why I think splitting the spectrum is NOT a good idea, and what could be done instead.=====
::Thanks for the quick reply, and for letting me know your opinion. Just to be on the safe side, let me check that we are talking about the same cover. I was referring to the cover of the first edition, published by ], which you can see on . Note that the description says "First Edition, First Printing with date of 1946 on copyright page, and no mention of subsequent printings." I don't mean any of the versions by Crystal Clarity Publishing (e.g. or ), which I agree would be favouring that particular publisher. Is this the cover that you thought I was talking about? — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


* Thank you for volunteering at this Dispute Resolution Board, Mr. Stradivarius (my favorite violin and cello brand). I´m glad to say you have not missed any issue. I agree the cover of the first edition should be used. Concerning this issue, if you go now to the "Autobiography of a Yogi"´s article you can verify that there are more wrong informations in the infobox, besides the use of a subsequent SRF´s cover of the book:
# It says Self-Realization Fellowship is the Publisher of the 1946 edition. There are no doubts now that this information is not correct. The Philosophical Library - New York was the Publisher of the first edition. I have this original edition in my hands now - not a facsimile of it.
# The ISBN belongs to a SRF´s later edition of the book. The first edition did not have a ISBN number. These erros affect the credibility of this Misplaced Pages´s article and should be corrected, not to mislead users. And there are other misinformations in the article, which we can discuss one by one.
:Last but not least, when you look for the "Autobiography of a Yogi" at Google Search, there is an advertise of the Misplaced Pages´s article about the book. I am posting here the facsimile of the Internet page that appears in my Windows 7 Internet Explorer to illustrate what I am saying. You can see, with great eminence, Self-Realization Fellowship´s present edition´s cover of the book, sponsored by en.wikipedia.org. The same cover is being used in many coutries as a global brand by SRF. It does seem Misplaced Pages appears to favour one publisher over another in detriment of the original cover as it was published in 1946. A priceless propaganda for SRF´s later reprint of the book, using Misplaced Pages´s credibility and flawless reputation. Thank you ] (]) 13:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
PS I would like to add a third issued in the infobox: The name in the book cover is spelled Paramhansa Yogananda - without the "a", not Paramahansa. Only much later SRF changed the spelling of the name and forged the author´s signature. This should also be corrected. I can upload any page of the 1946, the ] but there are many facsimiles in the Internet, for free. It is easy to verify this information. Later editions and the explanation why they were published should be in the article itself, not in the infobox. First editions of famous books are so important that they cost a fortune. Thank you ] (]) 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


</br>
::I agree with Tat Sat that the infobox needs to be updated. This is an interesting and unique situation. We have the first three editions published by the Philosophical Library. There was another edition I found on worldcat, which says "Newyork: London: Rider" as the publisher. ]. It's probably missing some information. In any case, before the author died, there were 3 editions of the book. At least one extra chapter was added to the third edition ] when the author was alive. Subsequent editions were published by Self-Realization Fellowship (the organization author founded back in 1920). Then years later following the first edition entering public domain, Crystal Clarity (owned by Ananda - founded by Kriyananda, an ex-member of SRF) started reprinting the first edition. They also released further versions with bonus/extra materials. I am not sure how we are going to reflect all these in an info box while being neutral. It would be good to take a look at wikipedia guidelines as per situations like this. ] (]) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
:::It was mentioned earlier, but just pointing it out, following Crystal Clarity other publishing houses have published 1946 (first edition) commercially. ] (]) 15:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


:::Although I think a more individualized classification system under Autism Spectrum might be helpful; I do NOT think categorization based of functionality levels or usefulness or societal contributions are ANY helpful. '''Technically, people with similar variations in different cognitive domains may have different societal repercussions.''' Such as I have some weird form of number-blindness (I can't often remember or recognize numbers in a meaningful way; such as dates, times, public transport routes, addresses or street numbers, etc. and particularly banking is a troll for me), and heightened recognition for "names" and "words"; which do have social repercussion, but just think of opposite combinations: a heightened sense for number but inability to remember or use words and names (anomic aphasia, hypothetical scenario). The scenario seen in at least few of the severely Autistic/ low-functioning (so called) individual. Who can tell dates and day names of calendar instantly but can't use words as principal mode of communication. For this minute difference I would probably have much more social repercussion, probably I would be mistreated as intellectually disabled, probably communication modes weren't offered, probably would have been subjected to abusive therapies. Perhaps I would never been learn to frame sentences due to inability to recall words. Perhaps parents were suggested to speak simple words loudly near my ears, which would feel as irritating as train numbers feel to me currently while in platform announcements.
*First I want to thank TatSat for bringing this discussion to the dispute area where we can have a calm, fact based discussion. And I thank Mr. Stradivarius for asking that this discussion remain non-personal. On that note and in my defense I need to point out that the attacking words were not based in truth.


To answer your question, Mr. Stradivarius, I think you are talking about the first edition book published by Philosophical Library as requested by Yogananda shown on eBay. This cover is duplicated by Crystal Clarity (even though their version looks newer) as you have pointed out in your illustration. So to post the original would favor the CC Publisher. When you google Crystal Clarity Publishers Autobiography of a Yogi, this is where you are taken.http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/ Please notice the commercial links to purchase their products.


</br>
The subsequent editions I am referring to are the changes the author made himself including to his third edition, published in 1951, where he made significant changes — including even adding a new Chapter #49 and new footnotes. Some further revisions made by him after the third edition were not able to be incorporated until the publication of the seventh edition, which was released in 1956. So you see, this edition which included edits by the author, is different from his first edition in 1946. I hope this information provides more clarity on the subject. http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ay/Yogananda%E2%80%99s_Wishes_for_Later_Editions.aspx
::: '''In reality, no two Autistics are the same.''' Neither 2 high functional Autistics are the same, nor 2 low functional Autistics are the same. Some have more issues with fine or gross motor control, some have more issues with interoceptions, some have more issues with emotional safety (esp those on ] profile or ] characteristics), some have more issues with different use of ] and ] etc. Such as a relatively "low functioning" Autistic may have a lesser sensory issues. S/he might enjoy loud music and social gathering. '''Conversely a relatively "high functioning" Autistic may have much more issues in some aspects''' such as sensory, emotional regulation issues, alexithymia, etc. '''And intermediate-need Autistics do exist'''.
Here are links to some of the other covers involved because we need to represent them as well.
:Sterling Publisher - http://www.sterlingpublishers.com/bookinfo.asp?na=9788120725249
: Ebury Press - http://www.play.com/Books/Books/-/4330/3594/-/206143/Autobiography-of-a-Yogi-/Product.html
:General Books - http://www.abebooks.com/9781153589826/Autobiography-Yogi-Yogananda-Paramahansa-1153589826/plp
: Create Space - https://www.createspace.com/3639535


:::I guess the following diagram provides a rough representation on how these variations might look like.
Of the books mentioned above the most common picture on the cover is the Standard Pose of Yogananda – The 1946 version published by Yogananda, Crystal Clarity, Sterling, General books and Self-Realization all use the same pose. So again I propose that we use the Standard Pose of Yogananda on this page and list in the info box that he is the author of this book.


:::]
Before we delve into more details on this page, let us first decide on whether we are even going to have an info box or not and if we are, what picture, then we can discuss the other things that need correcting. I would like to remind everyone that we were also discussing whether to even have a info box.] (]) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


::: '''FIGURE:''' Here is one hypothetical spikey profile, just think of another kind of hypothetical spikey or uneven profile.
*Mr Stradivarius - I respectfully ask that we stick with one subject at a time - We were discussing what picture to use or whether there should even be an info box and if we keep adding more issues before this is settled it will bring confusion. Please let us stick to one subject at a time. ] (]) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


:::Based on social outcome, we may '''mis-categorize''' some of us having just like some mild OCD like hyperreaction to small changes, or as if some common mental health disorder, and we may '''miscategorize''' some of others as "burdensome", "uneducable". But in reality, both kind of Autistics are part of a multidimensional continuum (Not just a linear spectrum of "more Autistic or Less Autistic" but differing in many many aspects).
*Another very important point is the third edition of 1951 that includes a new Chapter with many updates See this link for the details - http://en.wikisource.org/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi/Chapter_49 I just found a 1950 cover by publisher Rider - it too has the Standard pose on it - http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-yogi-Paramhansa-Yogananda/dp/B0000CHOJM/ref=sr_1_39?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342288326&sr=1-39&keywords=Yogananda%2C. Apparently this is a first edition published in the UK. When you go to this link be sure to scroll down to see the advertisers - (1) SRF (2) Crystal Clarity Publishers (3) Inner Path - An important note here is that '''Crystal Clarity & Inner Path are both business of Ananda's''' http://www.innerpath.com/ '''Ananda has branched out into many businesses.'''] (]) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


*Did some time consuming research and actually found 7 more Autobiography of a Yogi 1946 edition publishers. There are most likely even more as I basically searched the ones sold on Amazon and did not actually complete the search because of time - Please see list below:
:*Aeterna Publisher ISBN 978-1444437737 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa/dp/1444437739/ref=sr_1_40?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342325497&sr=1-40&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
:*BiblioBazaar ISBN 978-1426424151 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/1426424159/ref=sr_1_29?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342325208&sr=1-29&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
:*Floating Press ISBN 9781775411451 http://www.ebooks.com/340572/autobiography-of-a-yogi/yogananda-paramahansa/
:*Harmony Publishers in the UK – ISBN 9780955241277 http://www.harmonypublishing.co.uk/autobiography-of-a-yogi.html
:*JAICO ISBN 978-8172246600 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramhansa-Yogananda/dp/8172246609/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342325035&sr=1-26&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
:*Kessinger Publishing ISBN 978-1419108433 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramhansa-Yogananda/dp/1419108433/ref=sr_1_53?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342326331&sr=1-53&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
:*Snowball Publishing ISBN 978-1607962892 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/1607962896/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342326854&sr=1-2&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi+snowballpublishing


:::Therefore, we cannot force like "high functioning folks can't speak for low functioning folks" or "low functioning folks cannot speak for high functioning folks". '''In that logic, one high functioning folk should not have speaking for another high funnctioning individual'''. Or one low functioning shouldnt support another low functioning. But that is NOT the situation. Some of the experiences like SYNAESTHESIA, SENSORY OVERLOAD, STIMMING, ECHOLALIA, MELTDOWN etc apllicable on all the subgroups more or less, depending on individuals. Insights on one group really helps other subgroups. Back and forth.
These two are paperbacks which at first glance seem to be from Empire or Grange but are actually from Crystal Clarity Publishers – when you click to view the book click on the back page to see Crystal Clarity information:
:*Empire Books Paper back Crystal Clarity Publishers - ISBN 978-1619491250 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/1619491257/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342327264&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi+Zingoora+books
:*Grange Books Paper back Crystal Clarity Publishers – ISBN 978-1840137194 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/product-description/1840137193
] (]) 07:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your further posts, everyone. The discussion seems to have veered off track a little - let's try and deal with the issues in this dispute one at a time, starting with the question of which image to use in the infobox. Someone asked which Misplaced Pages guidelines govern the use of infobox images, so let's look at that first. The particular guideline that is most relevant here is ], especially ]. Here is a quote from it:
<blockquote>''It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox. The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. For most topics, the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person, photographs of a city, or a cover of a book or album, to name a few.''</blockquote>
From this, it would seem that a version of the book's cover would be most appropriate; however, this advice is quite general, and the guideline allows us some leeway in interpreting it. As well as this guideline, there is the ]. The most relevant criteria there is number one, "no free equivalent": this basically says that we cannot use a copyrighted image in the article if there is a free image that could do the job just as well. This means that we must be very careful in determining which images are copyrighted and which aren't, as it would be pointless for us all to agree on an image only to find out that we can't include it due to this criteria.


:::Look into underlying mechanism. Look into their introspection. Look into how they make friendships. look into what they want to share. Look into where they struggle. And deep inside there are similarities in mechanism,
So, from these, it would seem we need to come to a consensus about which image best represents the topic as a whole, and we also need to make sure that we don't get caught out by the "no free equivalent" rule. It seems that we're all in agreement that ] is not the most representative of the topic, so that is a good start. Red Rose 13 doesn't seem to want to use the original 1946 cover that I linked to above, so let's see if we can agree about another image. Red Rose suggested using ]; this would not be as representative of the topic as a book cover, but does have the advantage of being neutral, and appears not to be in copyright. Tat Sat, NestedVariable, what do you think about using this image? — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 11:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


:::'''I do think we need to provide individualized support cards to Autistic people, elaborating what kind of support needs they require'''. How to communicate with them. What kind of accommodations that person might need in workplace. But yes we can get a general and collective idea from multiple Autistics' experience which is indeed helpful. '''Personally I call the so called high functioning profile as the "interpreters" between Autistic and Non-Autistic universe'''. Of course there are exceptions but If not an individual level then '''at a collective level''' it is helpful to see the whole spectrum unsplitted. Neurotypical assumptions in the other hand, misleads. Even neurotypical people close to Autistic population often have no clue about how to effectively communicate, while some Autistics do communicate effectively among each other.
:: Looking through the research of Red Rose, it seems there are two first editions that were originally published. One by Rider with a green cover and the second one is by the Philosophical Library with a blue cover. Although the book is in public domain we don't know if the covers are as well. As per the court proceedings that Tat Sat provided earlier it says that the pictures are still copyrighted by SRF. In addition, as pointed out by both Red Rose and Tat Sat, we need to ensure we are not show casing any particular edition at the expense of other editions and numerous publishers. Now the blue cover seemed to have been reused with a few minor tweaks by Crystal Clarity and the book is distributed quite a bit. Therefore, being what discussed so far, to me it's not a fair contender. The second image that you suggested Mr. Stradivarius, is indeed in public domain and satisfies 'no free equivalent' rule. --] (]) 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


:::@] I would love to hear yor opinion regarding this matter. ] (]) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The photograph Paramahansa_Yogananda_Standard_Pose.jpg is the one I am suggesting. It is now in use on the Paramahansa Yogananda page. It is a higher resolution image and the same on the PY page. Magog actually found this free content picture for me. We had a discussion with Sitush about another image I used that apparently turned out to not be free content and Magog found this one to replace with. ] (]) 15:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
::::@] I would love to know your view too] (]) 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


===My views on the matter===
::::: Hello everyone,
Given the strict assurance from {{ping|User:Robert McClenon}} in the talk page conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-Robert_McClenon-20250103163000-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600 , Hereby I express my concerns regarding why sticking to pathology views can be harmful.
:::::# We are talking about the first edition of "Autobiography of a Yogi" - ] - not about licensed editions. The "Rider" licensed edition NestedVariable and Red Rose mentioned was published on October 25, 1949, three years after the publication of the book. All first editions are called so because they are one and only.
:::::# As you can verify in the infringement action´s and at , "the litigation war between two rival churches (Self-Ralization Fellowship versus Ananda Church) concerns copyrights". Quoting: "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda" - meaning the books which copyrights were detained by Yogananda. Also the photographs NestedVariable mentions were published in SRF´s magazine: "The final category of works in which SRF claims valid copyrights are not works by Yogananda but rather photographs of Yogananda and another religious leader, taken by various third parties and published in SRF's magazine". And this issue was considered "triable issue". You don´t have to be a lawyer to know that if the book cover was protected, nobody could use it. However, there are many facsimile publications of this ] which use its very cover. There is no doubt this book -- its cover, its content, its photographs and illustrations -- is in public domain.
:::::# SRF´s cover that presently illustrates the article is copyrighted by SRF. It does not use Yogananda´s black and white photo of the first edition´s cover, but a full color hyperrealistic painting of Yogananda,, which is also copyrighted by SRF, based on the original one, which is in public domain.
:::::# The picture Red Rose is suggesting to be replicated and used in the book article is curiously considered the "standard pose" by SRF -- not by anyone else -- and it is not a photograph but an hyperrealist black and white painting of Yogananda, copyrighted by SRF and based on the original one. You just have to compare the original with SRF´s. The safer option is to use one of Yogananda´s pictures that appear in the first edition of the book, although all editions published by The Philosophical Library are in public domain -- if an article about a book should be illustrated with an image of its author, not of the book.
:::::# As everybody agrees, there are too many publications of the same book, so what makes the most sense to me is to use the original 1946 cover, not a picture of the author, because the article is about a book, not about its author. And Misplaced Pages already features an article about the author. Thank you. -- ] (]) 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


*All right, so it seems that Red Rose and NestedVariable would prefer not to use the 1946 cover image, and that Tat Sat would prefer not to use the portrait photo of Yogananda. So we have come to an impasse. However, all is not lost. Here is what I propose we do. First, we make sure of the copyright status of (or maybe an alternative image that I found at http://www(dot)amazon(dot)com/dp/B004BHD9XS?tag=pulist-20 - remove the (dot)s) and of ]. I know this has already been looked into, but there could still be issues depending on who took the photographs, whether they transferred their rights to the SRF, whether the photographs of the books themselves are under copyright, and so on. In my opinion, it would be best to carry on the ] until we find a consensus on what the copyright status of all of the images is. Then, after that, we hold a ] at ] to get the opinion of as many uninvolved editors as possible. Once more people participate in the conversation, it should be easier to see what the wider Misplaced Pages community thinks is the best image to use. With this approach, some of you will end up being disappointed, but we will at least be able to make a definite decision. Would you all be willing to go through with this process, even if the result is that we don't use the image that you think is best? — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:* I am willing to go through with this proccess, of course. I think it is a great idea. And I will abide by a wider Misplaced Pages community decision about the best image to use. Misplaced Pages´s reputation for imparciality is flawless. However, I suggest that since there is a consensus that SRF´s cover is not an option, it should be removed by a Misplaced Pages editor as soon as possible from the infobox (leaving it without a cover image in the meanwhile) and the information about the Publisher of the first edition should also be corrected to "The Philosophical Library - New York". Thank you. -- ] (]) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


(Moderators Please feel free to cut paste this to appropriate section)
:*Before we do that I need to add that '''Megog who is a Misplaced Pages photograph copyright expert''' actually found this free photograph for me so we are rest assured we are safe with it. We already went through a copyright process in regards to this pose we are talking about. It does not come from SRF as TatSat claims but is a free photograph. I don't think we should be making decisions on heresay or opinions here. Also, where are the guidelines for a Neutral page one that '''does not show favoritism''' to any one viewpoint. I think we need to review this before we proceed. In my opinion, once this photograph is decided it seems that Tat Sat has indicated to be doing the same thing with other issues, is that correct TatSat? If this is true, then I think we need help with creating a page of Neutrality and Wiki guidelines with perhaps adding an editor with an expertise in this subject would be helpful to resolve these issues. ] (]) 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
::Along with you Mr. Stradivarius, and another editor with specific expertise on creating a neutral Misplaced Pages page and when Sitush again joins this discussion, perhaps we can all come to a resolution - that is my hope here] (]) 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


(1) '''Are you Autistic?''' </br>
::* I agree that as more neutral editors are involved, more we can ensure we are following npov stance. However, I am personally not a big fan of the voting phase to come to a consensus as from my prior experience it always turns ugly. Especially with situation like this one, we might expect unnecessary spamming. Although we will have to rely on that if everything fails. Regarding usage of the image, I would like to clarify my position a little bit.
‒ Yes, and also I have received formal diagnosis of “ASD”.
::# This article is about the book, not just the first edition. Hence, there is no particular need to use the first edition cover. Also, as per the guidelines provided by Mr. Stradivarius, wikipedia does not suggest only the first edition cover or any cover of the book at all. There are indeed articles of books on wikipedia that contain just the picture of the author. To add to this complication, Crystal Clarity currently publishes a commercially distributed version, which has almost identical cover.
::# Although the philosophical library published the first three editions, numerous publishers later reprinted the first edition. Even Rider while the author being alive published the first edition. As per one of the links provided by Red Rose earlier, SRF purchased the rights to publish from the Philosophical Library and claimed released editions with changes that the author wished to be incorporated.
::# The suggested picture: ] seem to appear on the cover of almost all editions. It is also verified to be in public domain. Therefore, this picture is a fair representation of the book, not any particular edition. ] (]) 20:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


(2) '''What are your perception of this ASD? Is this causing impairment to you? Is this a disorder to you?''' </br>
:::*Mr Stradivarius, I have noticed when there is a dispute and a compromise needs to occur in order for a consensus, each person with an opposite stance can choose to take a step towards reconciliation and harmony. ] I have taken that step by compromising and agreeing to the removal of the SRF book cover as long as no other book cover is put in its place. I am reaching out for the sake of harmony even though SRF publishes the only edition with all of Yogananda’s requested edits. None of the book covers can represent all 13+ other publishers on this page. If TatSat’s chooses to consider compromising. Here are a couple of ideas:
‒ This is rather complicated to answer. I have been seeing the world as too fast, too loud, too rigid, too figurative, too changing, too chaotic, too unempathetic, too complicated. I can do my stuff only if the situation favors it. However, I do think some of the conditions like situational mutism, executive function issues, fine motor and motor planning issues, meltdowns, shutdowns, etc. are causing difficulties and misunderstandings. You can compare it with a person with Dwarfism who see the public transport, school desks and blackboards, etc. are designed for taller people. Who feel like people around them are all taller. The difference is biological, but the impact is mostly social.
:::# Placing Yogananda’s photograph in place of the SRF book cover
:::# Eliminate all photographs from info box
:::# Eliminate the info box completely
:::In reality to have any book cover from any of the 13 publishers would show prejudice towards the other twelve. A reminder here that it is most probable that many more publishers will be doing the same thing and print the 1946 version in the future and we need to consider that as well. There are only two publishers from the list above that have copied the 1946 edition cover - Crystal Clarity & Jaico. If we can compromise and step towards reconciliation in this issue, we should be able to do it for the rest of the page.] (]) 04:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


(3) '''Do you think Autism should be defined solely based on negativity or deficits?''' </br>
*A side note that relates to our discussion. The photograph of Yogananda that Megog found for me to use has been deleted in Commons by someone. Is that vandalism or what do you call it? I have tried to upload the file again but seem to be blocked from uploading a photo. Is that vandalism? I have the photograph on my computer any suggestions? Also it looks like a new editor http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Shubha&action=edit&redlink=1 has uploaded a completely different photograph. Follow-up I found the admin who deleted it in error and I have notified him of his error. ] (]) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
‒ No, Autism should be defined and diagnosed based on its signs and internal experiences regardless of the stress level of the person. So that regardless of stress level you can predict and prevent or minimize traumatic experiences. Autistic person remains Autistic regardless of stress level or situations. In some situations we focus or work really well, in some other situation we meltdown or go into non functional, vegetative like state. But it is the same person and same brain. You can’t separate Autism from the Person and her/his core nature.
*:Could you tell us the filename of the image you mean? If you mean then it hasn't been deleted yet. All you need to do is to add the author and the source of the photograph. I.e. say which version of the book you got it from, and say who took the photograph if you know. And no, that's not vandalism, that is the Wikimedia Foundation protecting itself from copyright infringement lawsuits. — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::*Thank you for letting me know - I will need to ask Megog to help me with this because he is the one who found it] (]) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::I found the source information needed and didn't realize that it was lacking the information - thanks again for your help.] (]) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


(4) What is the impact of ASD diagnosis on you? </br>
*Also, another thing that I noticed is that on the Autobiography of a Yogi page in Portuguese where TatSat also edits, is a standard or common pose photograph of Yogananda instead of a bookcover. It looks fine to me.] (]) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
‒ It gave a rational explanation of my entire life. That was positive and empowering. It was the starting point to learn to stop hating oneself.


(5) '''Why do you think that the pathology model causes harm?''' </br>
I've noticed that this has appeared at ] in my absence, and I see that a lot of editors have been using the word "vandalism". I think you should all take a moment to reread ] - you will find out that the definition is very strict. Just because someone does something you don't agree with does not mean that it is vandalism. Saying that other editors have performed vandalism, if they have not, is an example of a ] - "''Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence''" - and is only going to make it harder to resolve this dispute. Please think again about my advice on personal attacks above - we want to do things that will help ''resolve'' this dispute, not things which escalate it. Regarding the infobox image, I have left a ] at the media copyright questions board. Let's wait for an answer to that, and then set up a ]. We can deal with the other content issues after that. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
‒ Before answering that, I want to let you know that I do not invalidate the impairments, stress, and suffering, regardless of need levels. For two reasons I think pathology model causes harm.


* '''Firstly,''' it tries to extinguish the “disorder” and its symptoms itself, the so called “taking out the child or the person from the grasp of Autism”, and it causes a testimonial injustice and a systematic injustice by not considering whether Autistic people are being fruitfully helped by this approach.
:Mr. Stradivarius - please can you comment on the proposal of not using an image or to use the photograph of Yogananda? You, Sitush & Nested Variable have brought up that in Misplaced Pages that it is not necessary to even have an image of the book or an image or a user box. This is what I am proposing here. What are your thoughts on this subject? ] (]) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:: Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, I am glad to know you are consulting the media copyright questions board. Thank you. ] (]) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


* '''Secondly,''' if we do not highlight the social nature of the problem, we would not achieve necessary societal changes and societal accommodations. As we know, Autism is often seen as a terror or an inherently undesirable trait, which leads to loss of human value and credibility. During COVID pandemic period just a few years ago; patients with learning disabilities were issued with '''DNR (Do not resuscitate)''' orders ; reflecting we are not yet seen as a full human being. '''The rate of job loss and unemployment, stress related disease, self-ha*rm and low life expectancy is skyrocketed'''.
::Sorry, been away for a few days. My position remains that if an infobox exists at all (most articles do not have them, IIRC) then the best option is to use an image of the 1946 1st edition/1st printing cover produced by the Philosophical Library, provided that we have an appropriate license to do so. It is definitive, it is original and it avoids all the back-and-forth about "my version is more representative/better than your version". That others later produced versions or even facsimiles of the PL first edition is a complete red herring. In the event that - as had been suggested at one point - that cover had no meaningful detail then we could use the frontispiece/title page for that edition. It really does not need a RfC: the problem here is quite clearly one related to emotions running in overdrive due to inexperience (hence, attacks, forum shopping, allegations of vandalism etc) + the usual chaos found in Indic-related discussions. There is no need to prolong the agony nor to inflict it on the wider community with a RfC.I can see consensus forming here if only we can get clarification of the image use issues.<p>Having a photo of the author is not a great idea, by the way: the article is about the book, not the person, and there is already enough hagiographic/promotional stuff lying around in related articles without unnecessarily adding still more here. <small>I'll likely be pruning/merging some of those things in due course.</small> - ] (]) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Just a procedural note: someone above apologises that they "cannot give my consensus" to use of the PL cover. Although it is nice when everyone agrees on an outcome, ] does not require it. While this process is not a vote, it also does not require the agreement of all involved parties. - ] (]) 10:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


'''(6) Do you benefit from treatment such as social skills lesson, behavioural therapy, ABC model or antipsychotic medications?''' </br>
::::I completely agree with Sitush as per we don't need consensus of everyone as long as we are following wikipedia guidelines. Regarding using a book cover, I already mentioned my views. Because it's a situation where many organizations are involved in printing/reprinting/publishing, using any cover might be misleading. Also, none of the covers might be in public domain anyways for us to use. ] (]) 13:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
‒ I was offered with social skills lessons, ABC model, behavioral therapies, and antipsychotic medications. NO, they worsen my wellbeing. They make me look like more regulated or sociable, but deep inside they worsen. They also take away my sense of boundary and autonomy. '''I also feel that there is not any real existence of “deficit of social skill” in the sense … because socialization is a 2 way process. I can do little if the so called “friends” abandons me or bullies me and I require to control myself to make room for everyone, yet I am considered to be the one who is “lacking” the social skills. Do not teach us forced eye contact etc. instead teach neurotypicals about existence and value of different kind of minds and brains.''' Further read: ()


(7) '''Then what can help you?''' </br>
::::{{ec}} Hi Sitush, good to have you back. :) I agree that we could resolve this without an RfC, and if we do have one we certainly shouldn't keep it open for the full 30 days; in fact, I was thinking that it should probably be less than one week. My main reason for suggesting an RfC is that it would be a fair way of dealing with the situation now that it seems clear that the parties don't agree on an image. <p>To newer users, an experienced editor or two claiming that we must do ''X'' because Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines say "Y" and "Z" may not seem to have more validity than arguments based on, e.g. ] or ]. However, if many experienced editors agree on an interpretation of the policies/guidelines, then newer users are a lot more likely to realise that the process is fair, and because of this are more likely to accept the outcome. Therefore we should see less recriminations and edit-warring if we have an RfC than we would see if we didn't. (As you might guess, I'm a fan of the essay ].)</p> <p>Of course, we don't have to do this through an RfC; we could ask the other volunteers on the noticeboard to give their opinion, for example, and I'm open to other suggestions. I don't think we should be worried too much about "inflicting" this dispute on other editors, though. If we set out a clear, neutral summary of the issues, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble for a few uninvolved editors to comment. — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)</p>
‒ If I am allowed the way I cope up or learn or focus or play. Even if they look odd/ childish/ intolerable. And also Only reasonable accommodation, such as flexible work hours, written instructions, communicating changes and meetups earlier, making the banking system or form fill-up simpler, etc.


(8) '''Will reasonable accommodation remove 100% of your problems?''' </br>
:::::Hello – A couple of points to help create a neutral summary:
‒ No, but it will minimize the survival mode.


(9) '''If direct treatment of Autism spectrum does not help you, then why you need counselling/ psychotherapy?''' </br>
:::::* There are two versions of the Autobiography offered today. One is the 1946 version that is published by 13 publishers with 12 different covers (notice the links above) and more coming in the future. The second one is the complete version that includes edits requested by the author after the 1946 version up to the present. The following statement can be found in the Publisher’s Note in the 1956 seventh edition. “In late 1953 Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) bought from the New York publisher all rights in Autobiography of a Yogi.”(I have the PDF if it is needed)
‒ Because of the traumatic and stressful situations that arise from daily living or interaction with typical world.
:::::* The issue isn’t about “mine is better than yours” the issue is that the Autobiography page should represent all publishers in an impartial way so that the reader has an impartial view. Also, placing the 1946 version cover on this page favors the publisher Crystal Clarity that have copied the original version and is actively selling it. Here is a small partial list of Ananda websites involved in promotions and or selling directly: Innerpath, Crystal Clarity Publishers, Expanding Light, Ananda Worldwide and Swami Kriyananda on Yoga as a Spiritual Path. On this Amazon page the first book is from Crystal Clarity, the third book is from Self-Realization Fellowship and the fourth book is from Crystal Clarity even though it says Empire (click on book and then on the copyright page)


(10) '''Why do you think it is important to make Autism diagnosis and support more accessible?''' </br>
:::::* To create a neutral NPV page, here are a couple of options:
‒ Currently the diagnosis and support for Autism are not accessible at all, because of existing stereotypes such as intellectual disability and inability to speak. Many professionals are also not aware of less typical presentations of Autism. As a result the stressed out person is often offered with mental health diagnosis such as depression, anxiety, bipolar, schizoid or borderline or introverted personality disorders, paranoia, anger, delusional disorder, OCD, etc. which are basically a secondary mental health condition. But cognitive differences esp. related to Autism Spectrum, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Prosopagnosia, Sensory processing disorder, etc. and its societal repercussions remain unaddressed.
::::::# Remove the SRF cover
::::::# Use the historical photograph taking from the 1st version Autobiography – not the full cover
::::::# Use the frontispiece/title page of original edition -as Sitush pointed as a possibility
::::::# Use no photograph
::::::# Use no Info Box


Secondly, Autistics who are able to any one of : speak or write or communicate using AAC tools … can provide significant insight about Autistic lived experience. Lived experience may include Qualia or unfalsifiable components, but lived experience is the ultimate thing that shapes our lives. '''Thus Autistic lived experiences can function as an “interpreter” between non-Autistic and Autiistic communications. Note that each Autistic is unique, but we get better details on how to help Autistics, and to reduce harms, if we listen to and trust Autistic voices.'''
:::::Posting this in hopes of coming to a common ground and agreement by all parties.] (]) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::This doesn't clarify a thing and is indeed mostly just repeating what you have already said. And where it is not, it muddies the waters. Who cares about the number of current sellers and/or publishers in this context? The issue is ''not'' that the article "should represent all publishers" nor about who sells it now. The article is about the ''book'', and we adopt the first edition process quite frequently. It came as no surprise to me that Mr Stradivarius, as an experienced contributor, saw the sense in that.<p>Removing the cover defeats the object (and why do you only offer that suggestion for the SRF book?). Similarly, using just a portrait photo defeats the object (and just as well he isn't Mohamed, I guess). You have significantly distorted my reason for suggesting use of the frontispiece, which was intended to apply if the cover is bland (and I have no idea if the frontispieces vary in design or not, so we could be back where we started).<p>I am increasingly of the opinion that there is indeed an undercurrent of ] here involving the various sects. However, since the author does not feature in the of the Philosophical Library, that first edition cover should address present-day commercial concerns. PL also has the appearance of being the only remotely mainstream publisher: the others all seems to be ] in varying degrees. That they feature on Amazon means nothing: cranks such as ], the Holocaust-denying "historian". - ] (]) 23:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


(11) '''Do you want to include testimony of any other Autistics?''' </br>
‒ Yes, a mostly nonspeaking Autistic, with a lot of co-occurring impairment and dynamic disabilities, clinically diagnosed as severe or low functioning; who was a faculty at Barkeley and currently at a PhD programme in ], that


"I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 3, and for the amount of “evidence-based therapy for autism” that has consumed my entire childhood, I should have been able to navigate it many times over by now. Why was I not benefiting from the vast amount of research that is being done in the name of understanding autism better? After all, autism has been an official diagnosis since 1980". He also expressed that "Of course, as a child you don’t have the power to challenge the “expert,” and you are left with a feeling of cognitive dissonance and mismatch that this is not quite right. ".
:::::::Honestly, I was stepping out in ''good faith'' in an attempt to suggest key points to be added to the neutral summary as Mr. Stradivarius mentioned and I assumed someone was writing. I apologize if my post sounded otherwise. My intention was to layout all the npov (in my opinion) options that already has been mentioned and open to us at this moment. I am definitely open to following whatever decision suits Misplaced Pages guidelines and come to a consensus with other community members. Thank you. ] (]) 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


and that
== 16:10 ==


"Yet, willy-nilly, existing autism research findings, and the resultant therapies and educational strategies, have been applied across the board to all autistics. Unfortunately, a lack of success in therapies not suited for you in the first place, leads to negative downstream impacts such as being placed in low expectations classrooms, the closure of opportunities, and less than positive lifetime outcomes. I find that despite all the careers, promotions, and profits being made by thousands of autism-experts, the state of autism interventions right now is one hot mess. In reality, there still are no real “experts” in autism because there is no one-size fits all model."
{{DR case status|inprogress}}
{{drn filing editor|Indrek|12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 12:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|16:10}}


Note that "wellbeing" in neurotypical standard, and actual wellbeing in Autistic population may look different. But if we keep enforcing the "Global, unanimous scientific consensus" to people who cannot speak, and we systematically exclude people who can speak about the harm, we keep the injustice unnoticed and continued.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


] (]) 06:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The dispute is over a part of a sentence, shown in bold in the quote below (word-wrapped and refs removed for legibility, original revision is ):
While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices,
has been seen as a positive, many consider 16:9 to be inferior to 16:10 for productivity-oriented tasks (such as Internet browsing,
editing documents or spreadsheets, and using professional design and engineering applications), '''which benefit more from vertical resolution,'''
'''rather than horizontal'''.


'''Further Reading:'''
]'s objections to this statement have, over the course of the dispute, been the following:
*That it's subjective and misrepresents an opinion as fact . I accepted that the statement may have been unintentionally ambiguous and misleading and amended it accordingly . ] did not find this acceptable, claiming that, quote, "Just because some people consider that doesnt mean that it is considered" , and insisting on reverting to his version of the statement .
*That the sources aren't good because they discuss individual resolutions, rather than aspect ratios , which I refuted by quoting the relevant parts of the sources .
*That the statement contradicts that discusses the effects of high resolutions and single vs. multiple displays on productivity , and which focuses more on the number and sizes of displays , which I believe have nothing to do with the subject at hand (the industry's move from 16:10 to 16:9 and the response to that move).
*That the statement contradicts hypothetical opposing opinions , which he never provided reliable sources for.
*That there's no room in Misplaced Pages for opinions (which is obviously false).
*That the edit is overall a step backwards from the "more objective and simply higher quality" pre-dispute revision (which contained little more than a verbatim copy&paste from a source, and had no representation whatsoever of opposing opinions).


Regarding dissent on ABA or ABA based methods:
I have made a number of suggestions to reword the statement in a way that addresses any legitimate concerns, but ] either outright rejected or simply ignored all of them, including one version that was in response to his own sole attempt at compromise .


* Bowman, Rachel A., and Jeffrey P. Baker. "Screams, slaps, and love: the strange birth of applied behavior analysis." Pediatrics 133, no. 3 (2014): 364-366.
Further, ] was unwilling to refrain from editing or removing the disputed content until the dispute is resolved, immediately reverting back to his preferred revision after the temporary protection expired and insisting that, quote, "Everything that there is no consensus about should be removed" . He also implied ulterior motives behind my recommendation (which was based on ] and ]) to keep the article as it was when it was protected .


* Wilkenfeld, Daniel A., and Allison M. McCarthy. "Ethical concerns with applied behavior analysis for autism spectrum" disorder"." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30, no. 1 (2020): 31-69. doi: 10.1353/ken.2020.0000 , url: https://www.learningkeystones.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Uploads/Ethical%20Concerns%20with%20ABA%20for%20Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder.pdf
Some examples of ]'s conduct during the discussion:
* dismissing the sources I provided as "just opinions" , " more valid than mine or yours" , "noob sources" , "noobs comments" , "not serious" , "neither relevant or significant" , "low quality blogs" and containing "false statements" and "factual errors" , and the statement backed by those sources as "simply false" and "a paradox" , without any supporting evidence or explanation
* accusing me of being biased and deleting "research" , again without evidence or explanation
* aggressively telling me to "back off"
* calling the whole discussion a "farse" (''sic'')
* indicating intention to resume edit warring as soon as temporary protection is removed , directly below a comment from a moderator encouraging us to resolve the dispute through discussion, rather than reverting
* editing my comments without good reason or my permission (a violation of ]), under the pretext of "equality", but with the apparent goal of disrupting my argument by removing emphasis from where I felt it was needed to accurately convey my argument
* lying about the status of the dispute


* Pyne, Jake. "“Building a person”: Legal and clinical personhood for autistic and trans children in Ontario." Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 35, no. 2 (2020): 341-365.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


* Sandoval-Norton, Aileen Herlinda, Gary Shkedy, and Dalia Shkedy. "How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse?." Cogent Psychology 6, no. 1 (2019): 1641258.
:* {{user|Indrek}}
:* {{user|Urklistre}}


* Shkedy, Gary, Dalia Shkedy, and Aileen H. Sandoval-Norton. "Long-term ABA therapy is abusive: A response to Gorycki, Ruppel, and Zane." Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders 5, no. 2 (2021): 126-134.
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


* Conine, Daniel E., Sarah C. Campau, and Abigail K. Petronelli. "LGBTQ+ conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis: A call to action." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 55, no. 1 (2022): 6-18.
Yes.


* Graber, Abraham, and Jessica Graber. "Applied behavior analysis and the abolitionist neurodiversity critique: An ethical analysis." Behavior Analysis in Practice 16, no. 4 (2023): 921-937.
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>16:10<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


*
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
::"This is a topic concerning a community I care a great deal about. My
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''
decision to retract this piece stems from my love for my brother and years of
inner turmoil over wanting to support both autistic individuals and their
parents and caregivers, and growing up in an era and within a community
that framed ABA as a positive tool for the autistic population that they had
been wrongfully denied. That, in recent years, has been followed by the slow
realization and resolution of cognitive dissonance in light of recent studies
and literature reviews on the impact of ABA on people with autism and the
individual testimonials of autistic adults on the trauma ABA caused them—
that real harm is being done to these individuals by ABA. ABA has been in
my family’s life for decades, since my brother was diagnosed in the 1990s, and though I am aware this retraction may not be well-received in our community of origin, I have seen enough for myself to
be convinced that ABA is
the autistic community’s analog to the LGBTQ community’s conversion
therapy." - Ariana Cernius


] (]) 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Tried to discuss the issue on the talk page, filed an edit war / 3RR report, filed a request for a third opinion


Relevant discussions:
* ''How do you think we can help?''


* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Too_little_focus_on_anthropology_and_social_dynamics;_too_intense_focus_on_medical_genetics. </br>
By helping establish consensus on the following points:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#ABA_is,_at_least,_controversial </br>
*Reliability of the following sources (suggested by me):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Editors_removed_%22Unbalanced%22_tag,_which_is_wrong </br>
:*http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1652880/time-ditch-awful-hd-1080p-widescreens
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Simple_reasoning_for_why_pathologising_Autism_is_unfair </br>
:*http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Autism_is_a_spectrum_and_it_looks_like_ICD_or_DSM_are_gatekeepers._Definition_of_Autism_and_ASD_varied_through_ages </br>
:*http://vr-zone.com/articles/monitor-aspect-ratios--beyond-16-9-ipad-to-the-rescue-/13399.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication
:*http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_6.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Fundamental_flaw_persist_in_how_a_%22pathology%22_is_defined._Until_that_is_going_to_be_solved,_the_debate_will_continue. </br>
:*http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1723060/gateways-displays-common-sense
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241214061100-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213203100 </br>
:*http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/golden-ratio.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600-Autistic_scorpio-20250103000000 </br>
:Top three are the ones I'd prefer to keep (per agreement with ] to trim the number down to three ), all six are included for sake of completeness.
"I am consistently seeing the editors using the "Normal" vs "Pathology" dichotomy. Like if something isn't pathological then it is normal, or if something is not normal then it is pathological. They seem to miss the basic nature of the problem. Which occurs in a third dimension."
*Relevance and significance of the opinions provided by those sources (namely, that 16:10 displays provide more vertical space than 16:9 displays and are therefore better suited for productivity-oriented tasks) in ].
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Topic_missing_or_not_elaborate_enough </br>
*Whether or not the following wording (my last suggested version) accurately and without bias represents and summarises those opinions:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Special_Section </br>
:"some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks."
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Adult_Autistics </br>
*Reliability and relevance of the following sources (suggested by ]):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241220201200-WhatamIdoing-20241220073400 </br>
:*http://lifehacker.com/5616859/is-the-multiple+monitor-productivity-boost-a-myth
"Up to my common sense, impairment usually mean the biological aspects, and a disability means a barrier in societal aspect (societal participation, having voice, having access to the same things that a non-disabled do). For example: Retinal detachment or glaucoma is more of an impairment, but resulting situation such as inability to access books or a public library, lacking navigation support, etc. constitutes the disability. Sometimes a disability is not necessarily a deficit but a mismatch. Whereas not all deficits lead to a disability, such as draconian politicians (I would not name anybody) often lack affective empathy or conscience, to a various extent, and have excess of other dark triad traits ... but it does not put them in disadvantage, rather it makes them uninhibited to get what they want... by hook or crook. It makes them more advantaged. Distinguishing an impairment or a disability can be an interesting philosophical-ethical challenge, and that debate itself should cover a page."
:*http://productivepractices.com/content/monitors_and_productivity.php
* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0-20241217040400-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213132400
:Note: ] has changed his argument a number of times over the course of the dispute, and I'm not entirely sure that he hasn't changed his mind about the above sources as well. Nevertheless, I thought it only fair to include them here.
*Pending the outcome of the previous point, the best way to incorporate the information from ]'s sources so that the views provided in them, as well as the views provided by the sources I suggested (also pending their approval as reliable and relevant), are both represented fairly and proportionately (per ]).


=====My Conclusion=====
] (]) 12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


* Neurotypes and Internal experiences are not negotiable.
===16:10 discussion===
* Concealing the views critical to mainstream pathology paradigm doesn't help Audience. It rather takes away better quality of life, takes away better understanding on the matter.
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
* Encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, with all viewpoints.
* Neurodiversity and social model isn't a fringe position
* Neurodiversity and social model does not invalidate biological suffering and co-occurring coditions.
* The article should boost confidence, wellbeing, value, and social safety and social support of Autistic people. And acceptance of Autism to general population. That is only possible through better language and more positive and uplifting representation of Autism.
* '''Complete re-write of the article is required.'''
* '''I assume that any Good Faith editor would want the BEST for Autistics, and to do that we need to listen to Autistics.'''
* I PLEA the editors to come into a consensus to show the bigger picture including all opposing views and use uplifting perspective and uplifting language.
* My opinion solely belongs to myself, and can have technical inaccuracies. however I do acknowledge an Autistic collective knowledge and Autistic consensus do exist, which does not often match with professional or biomedical consensus. This shows an existing shortcoming in the professional biomedical views, as it creates an epistemic injustice: '''So called high functioning folks are subjected to denial of support, job loss, self-ha*rm, stress etc. where as so called low functioning folks remain mistreated using inapplicable or coercive therapy methods with weird goals of extinguishing "behaviors" and not supporting inside out.''' I support that the concerns raised by {{ping|user:Oolong}} is true and highly important.


] (]) 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cue}} Hello; I am a regular volunteer here on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Thank you, Indrek, for your detailed introduction of the dispute. Before we begin working through your points, I would like to remind all of the involved disputants that ''no binding decisions are issued here''. DRN is merely an informal process in which uninvolved editors (like myself) attempt to help disputants establish consensus. DRN is for ''content'' issues, not ''conduct''. If you have conduct issues with another user that need to be addressed, the proper place for that is ], but I think we can probably avoid that if we all avoid getting into personalities. Now, that being said - I would like to take some time and look at a few of the sources you provided above. I probably won't comment on the reliability of the sources yet; before I do anything, I would like to hear Urklistre's response to the above points. Cheers. ] (]) 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for your response. Just a quick note, re the conduct issues I listed - I was simply going by the guidelines here that state that, quote, "when conduct is a factor in a dispute over article content, that's OK", and decided to err on the side of being thorough. I agree with you completely, though, that if we can resolve the dispute amicably and without escalating conduct issues to dedicated forums, that would be ideal. ] (]) 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


:@], thank you for sharing your views. Is there a typo in the sentence that says "doesn't help Audience"? I assume you meant "hep Autistics". ] (]) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Robert Stinnett ==
::@] By Audience I mean Encyclopedia readers. They can be parents, professionals, Autistic readers, Classmates, School teachers, anybody. Don't conceal truth. Reveal contrasting paradigms. Simple. Thank you for asking ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you. ] (]) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Are we reaching to dispiute resolution?===
{{DR case status}}
It looks like debates and discussions are going for a long period, but any permission to modify the article is not being obtained. Both in Talk page and DRN for Autism, wall of texts is growing up. People are not understanding that harmful things are being promoted in the name of only 1 consensus, and opposing viewes are being concealed. Emotional labour of the volunteers are being disrespected. Wall of text making things unreadable in talk and DRN.
{{drn filing editor|Bobjuch|14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)}}
What a hopeless situation ] (]) 16:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- ] 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Robert Stinnett}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


Note that I am not advocating for erasure of pathology view. I am just saying that encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. It should present all aspects of a situation. ] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I found this article randomly and noticed that there was criticism of one of his books that was sourced only from a user review on Amazon.com. I removed that as it doesn't belong in a biography in the first place, is potentially libelous, and belongs in the article "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate". User TREKphiler apparently has strong feelings about this author and subject. He reverted my deletion twice. See the talk page.


I strongly oppose concealing of information from people. ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed that user Penguin 236 reverted my deletion saying I had not explained why. I did explain in a comment on tha page saying to see the talk page and in detail on the talk page.


== Sri Lankan Vellalar ==
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


{{DR case status|closed}}
:* {{user|Bobjuch}}
{{drn filing editor|Kautilyapundit|05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:* {{user|Trekphiler}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed as wrong venue. I should have noticed before opening this dispute. The filing editor is looking for more editors with knowledge about South Asian groups and communities. This noticeboard is not the place to look for editors with particular experience, but provides volunteer mediation, by volunteer editors who may not have any special knowledge about the subject area, because the parties are expected to explain the facts in dispute. The filing editor might be better advised to look for a WikiProject, such as ]. Resume discussion at the article talk page, or at a WikiProject. ] (]) 05:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:* {{user|Penguin 236}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''

Yes.

* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Robert Stinnett<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''

Explained in detail why I deleted the disputed content on its talk page.

* ''How do you think we can help?''

Decide whether or not that content is appropriate.

] (]) 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

===Robert Stinnett discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
:♠The ultimate source isn't Amazon. It's a PDF. The Amazon link ''has'' the PDF, since the site I found it on is one I can't find again. And I've explained ''that'' twice already.
:♠As for the actual content, it's about the book, yes. Stinnett wrote it. It's what he's best known for. Therefore, mentioning at least some of the issues in it is necessary. Deletion of that is effectively censorship ''in favor'' of Stinnett, & not NPOV.
:♠My "strong feelings" have nothing to do with Stinnett. They have to do with the fiction he's presenting as fact. He deserves to have it revealled as fiction. Deleting mention of it is ''also'' POV. ] ]</font> 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

::Hello, ]. The pdf came from (or has been copied to) . This simply isn't a ] as it hasn't been published anywhere. Have you considered tracking down any of the published reviews and using those instead?

::*Zimmerman, John. "Pearl Harbor revisionism: Robert Stinnett's day of deceit". Intelligence and National Security, 17:2, 2002, pages 127-146, DOI: 10.1080/02684520412331306520.
::*Kahn, David. "Did Roosevelt Know?" New York Review of Books, Nov. 2 2000. (, )
::*Doenecke, Justus D. Review in the Journal of American History, 89:1, 2002. pp281-282. doi: 10.2307/2700894
::*Jacobsen, Philip H. "A Cryptologic Veteran's Analysis of "Day of Deceit"", Cryptologia, 24:2, 2000, pages 110-118, DOI:10.1080/01611190008984235
::*Jacobsen, Philip H. "Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? No! The Story of the US Navy's Efforts on JN-25B", Cryptologia, 27:3, 2003, pages 193-205, DOI:10.1080/0161-110391891865
::*Jacobsen, Philip H. "Radio Silence of the Pearl Harbor Strike Force Confirmed Again: The Saga of Secret Message Serial (SMS) Numbers", Cryptologia, 31:3, 2007, pages 223-232, DOI:10.1080/01611190701313940

::If you don't have access to these you might want to ask at ]. Good luck! ]] 10:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if reliable sources that contradict Stinnett are cited, this biography is not the place for a fight over the book. There is a huge article, "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate", that gets into much more background and detail. That is the place, not in a biography. I put a link to that article in the biography. ] (]) 14:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:The Stinnett biography should include information about how Stinnett's career was affected by the various reactions to his book, including whether he responded to the pointed criticism. The many details of the criticism should be elucidated at the ] article. ] (]) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

==École nationale de l'aviation civile==
{{DR case status| open}}
{{drn filing editor|80.13.85.217|08:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 08:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|École nationale de l'aviation civile}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Sri Lankan Vellalar}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Kautilyapundit}}
* {{User|Luigi Boy}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.
] and ] are for this version : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502689914&oldid=502688867. I am more for this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502688867&oldid=502687945. The goal is to make this article a good article.


Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.
:* {{user|Racconish}}
:* {{user|80.13.85.217}}
:* {{user|McSly}}
:
We have started a discussion on the talk page of the article.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


Yes.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>École nationale de l'aviation civile<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


==== Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy ====
Discussion on talk page
First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:


- Terminology differences
* ''How do you think we can help?''


- The inclusion of the mythology section
By giving other opinions on which version is the best, by comparing with ] on the same subject.


'''Terminology Differences'''
] (]) 08:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


The root of the terminology issue stems from my , where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were ].
===École nationale de l'aviation civile discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>
Hi! I'm a volunteer here at the DRN, and I'll be attempting to assist you all in this dispute. My first question is simply, have you considered a ] request? '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hi. Thanks for your reply. That's exactly why I decide to go at the DRN. I hope it will help us. ] (]) 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::Third opinion requested.<span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">&mdash;&thinsp;''']''']</span> 18:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::: To other editors, see also : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AÉcole_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502841727&oldid=502839435. I am very surprised, it is really against a calm, concise, and on topic discussion. ] (]) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::It may be that you want to go to Peer Review, because that is the way to get a Good Article. Do you want me to give advice at this stage? I'm a French speaker. C'est à dire que je sais traduire de français en anglais, pas dans le sens inverse. ] (]) 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes of course. All advice are useful. And also, what is Peer Review? Thanks a lot. ] (]) 19:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:
::::::Have a look at ]. I will come over to the article talk page. ] (]) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}


- {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}} refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the ].
{{clerknote}} 80.13.85.217 opened a thread at AN/I, ]. '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 19:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks to both of you. To ], I will ask for a review. ] (]) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::To ]. I cannot start the page Misplaced Pages:Peer review/École nationale de l'aviation civile/archive1 because I don't have an account. It is written when I choose the topic "Social sciences and society" on ENAC's talk page. Please may I request your help? For my justifications, I would like to say that this is following the current discussion and because I think the article is not far from a good article. ] (]) 19:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::See on suspicion of this - now blocked - contributor gaming the system. In any case, a third opinion on the dispute regarding ENAC will be welcome.<span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">&mdash;&thinsp;''']''']</span> 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Disputes aside, the main proble with the article is grammar. The French historic present should become English simple past. ] (]) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Just beware this IP <s>is</s> was suspected of gaming the system by requesting registered users to endorse his POV pushing.<span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">&mdash;&thinsp;''']''']</span> 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::3rd opinion given. Article fixed. I think the case may be closed at this point.<span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">&mdash;&thinsp;''']''']</span> 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


- {{Langx|ta|வெள்ளாளர்|Veḷḷāḷar}} represents the caste name in contemporary usage.
==Thomas Sowell==
This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste ] often uses this term {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}}, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|CartoonDiablo|19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Thomas Sowell}}


'''Inclusion of the Mythology Section'''
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.
The editors are trying to remove a Media Matters source () based on their ] and are trying to justify it on ] and consensus. The reasoning fails since it's minimally used once in the entire article so it can't possibly be considered Undue unless it also happens to not be an RS.


The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.
To give some background, we had a dispute resolution about this same source earlier to which it was found that Media Matters is a reliable source and yet editors are trying to remove it on baseless grounds. ().


'''Third-Party Opinion'''
It's worth noting that removal of MMfA based on POV is not uncommon in the article (, , , ).


Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed ] or not ], the concerned user should raise the issue on ]. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.
:* {{user|CartoonDiablo}}
:* {{user|Arzel}}
:* {{user|Thargor Orlando}}
:* {{user|Lionelt}}
:* {{user|Hugetim}}


=== Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion ===
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)===
Yes.
I am ready to act as the moderator if the participants want moderated discussion and if this does not involve a question about the ]. Please read ] and the ]. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, first, whether they agree to ] and that discussions of South Asian social groupings are subject to special rules. Each editor is then asked, second, what changes they want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Each editor is asked, third, whether there are issues about the ]. If I determine that there are issues about the ], or if an editor states that there are such issues, I will close this discussion until that question is resolved at ].


Are there any other questions?
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Thomas Sowell<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>
] (]) 05:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:Thank you for your time, Robert. I greatly appreciate it. Let me summarize my points simply and clearly. I value your time.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
:</br>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''
: 1. <big>Mythological Origin and Its Sources in the Sri Lankan Vellalar Article
:</big>
:</br>
:=== Mythological origin === (sri lankan vellalar)
:According to myth, the ] and Pallar are descendants of two farmer brothers.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vincentnathan |first=Lynn |title=Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community |date=1987 |publisher=University of Wisconsin--Madison |pages=385 |language=en}}</ref> The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter.<ref name=":23">{{Cite book |last1=Manogaran |first1=Chelvadurai |title=The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity |last2=Pfaffenberger |first2=Bryan |date=1994 |publisher=Westview Press |isbn=9780813388458 |pages=35, 43, 147, 149 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite book |last=David |first=Kenneth |title=The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia |date=1977-01-01 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=9783110807752 |pages=189, 190, 204 |language=en}}</ref> After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Contributions to Indian Sociology |date=1993 |publisher=Mouton |location=University of Oxford |pages=69 |language=en}}</ref>
:</br>
:The provided Source 1 (Vincentnathan, p. 385) states:
:"myth for the Pallars of Sri Lanka , another Tamil Harijan caste ranked higher than Paraiyar , in which two farmer brothers became ancestors of the Pallar and Vellalar castes : The elder brother's land , tools , cattle , and crops were ..."
:</br>
:This line is from David Kenneth's The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia (p. 189).
:</br>
:"5.9: PALLAR ORIGIN MYTH: Pallan and Vellälan, both farmers, were annan and tampi . Pallan had many children; Vellälan had four children.There was a horrible thunderstorm and a cyclone which destroyedPallan s land, tools, cattle, and crop but left Vellälan s possessionsintact. Pallan had no food and had to ask his younger brother for something to eat." <ref name="o961">{{cite book | last=David | first=K. | title=The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia | publisher=De Gruyter | series=World Anthropology | year=2011 | isbn=978-3-11-080775-2 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vp_la9QMGIQC&pg=PA189 | access-date=2024-12-29 | page=189}}</ref>
:</br>
:The same book discusses the myth of the Vellalar. (p. 185)
:</br>
:"5.2:VELLALAR ORIGIN MYTH: Although many Vellälar, the dominant landowning caste, were asked to relate their origin myth, I was unable to elicit anything more explicit than the myth recorded by Arunachalam (1964):
:A branch of Vellälas the old ruling caste of Tamil land claimed to have received grain and instruction on its cultivation from the Earth Goddess Parvathi hence Velläjas were called pillais ; kings also drove the plow. Vellälars would elaborate by saying that they were both the creators of life (in that they created food) and the rulers of the land."
:
:</br>
:The provided source 2 (The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity, p. 149)
:</br>
:"From the Vellalar point of view, the stigma of Nalavar and Pallar rank, coupled with the history of these castes as recent immigrants from south India, denies that they have any real claim to membership in the Tamil community. In the early 1970s, some Vellalars expressly denied that Nalavars and Pallars were Tamils; and in tum, members of these two castes in the early 1970's still sometimes referred to Vellalars as "Tamils," thus driving home the social and cultural gulf that divided them from Vellalars. The Nalavars' and Pallars' recent historical origins in Dutch-sponsored immigrations from south India, and their putativelydarl<er skin, also seive to deepen the Vellalar sense that the Minority Tamils are a people apart from the mainstream Tamil community.
:It should be noted that Minority Tamils do not always accept the view that they are non-Tamilians. The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers; after the older brother's death, the widow--a "bad woman," according to the tale-made the younger one into a landless slave."
:</br>
:Hence it is the tale of pallars.
:</br>
:<big>2. Contradictions Between the Mythological Origin and the Real Origin of the Sri Lankan Pallars</big>
:</br>
:=== Mythological origin === (Sri Lankan Pallar)
:The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community|last=Vincentnathan|first=Lynn|date=1987|publisher=University of Wisconsin--Madison|pages=385|language=en}}</ref> The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity|last1=Manogaran|first1=Chelvadurai|last2=Pfaffenberger|first2=Bryan|date=1994|publisher=Westview Press|isbn=9780813388458|pages=35, 43, 147, 149|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia|last=David|first=Kenneth|date=1977-01-01|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=9783110807752|pages=189, 190, 204|language=en}}</ref> After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Contributions to Indian Sociology|date=1993|publisher=Mouton|location=University of Oxford|pages=69|language=en}}</ref>
:=== Early period ===
:The Sri Lankan Pallar and the ]s of ] share a common origin. The Pallars traditionally inhabited the fertile ] known as ''Marutham''. They were earlier known as ''Kadaisiyar'', ]s on the land of the ''Uzhavar'' or ''Kalamar''.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Historical Dictionary of the Tamils|last=University|first=Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru|date=2017-08-25|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-1-5381-0686-0|pages=371|language=en}}</ref> The women of this community were noted in ] for their expertise in ] transplantation.<ref>{{Cite book|title=History of People and Their Environs: Essays in Honour of Prof. B.S. Chandrababu|date=2011|publisher=Bharathi Puthakalayam|isbn=978-93-80325-91-0|location=Indian Universities Press|pages=320|language=en}}</ref>
:=== Medieval period ===
:The Pallars migrated to ] as ] accompanied by their chiefs, on whose land they toiled.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Ceylon and the Dutch, 1600-1800: External Influences and Internal Change in Early Modern Sri Lanka|last=Arasaratnam|first=Sinnappah|date=1996-01-01|publisher=n Variorum|isbn=978-0-86078-579-8|pages=381|language=en}}</ref> They migrated in large numbers mainly from ] country in search of fertile land. Pallars settling in the ], which was rich in ], joined others there involved in ].<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|title=Tamil culture in Ceylon: a general introduction|last=Raghavan|first=M. D.|date=1971|publisher=Kalai Nilayam|pages=104, 184, 193|language=en}}</ref> Some Pallars were involved in other occupations, such as fishers, servants in forts, and harvesters of ] roots, contributing to the famous ] industry of ].
:</br>
:These are copied from the articles. Upon reading and verification, it is evident that the Pallars originated from the Pallar of Tamil Nadu. The same applies to the Vellalar. Both groups migrated to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu and are distinct.
:</br>
:<big>3. Conclusion</big>
:</br>
:The user made a preferred edit to suit their narrative. Additionally, they misinterpreted the source, which falls under WP:OR. The myth of the Pallars cannot be attributed to the Vellalars, especially when the same source specifically discusses the Vellalars. The mythological origin section is clearly outdated and invalid, as it contradicts well-documented reality. I refer to ].
:</br>
:If anyone wants to add the mythological origin to the "Sri Lankan Vellalar" article, it should specifically address the Vellalars. As per WP:RSUW, the section is unnecessary.
:</br> ] (]) 05:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


===Zeroth statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)===
Discussed it in talk page.


* ''How do you think we can help?''


===First statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)===
By determining:
I asked whether each editor had any questions about the ]. That question does not appear to have been answered. If there are any questions about sources, please state them for me so that I can ask ] about the sources.


I asked each editor to state concisely what they wanted to change, or to leave the same. The answers are long, and it is not obvious to me what each editor wants. It appears that the main dispute has to do with the mythological origin section. So I will ask each editor whether they want to: delete the mythological origin section; leave the section unchanged; expand it; or modify it but rework or revise it.
# If using the MMfA source constitutes Undue
# If the editors are trying to exclude it based on POV and baselessly trying to use policies to justify it.


There was a ] by ]. Normally a Third Opinion should resolve a content dispute. So I will ask each editor whether they agree with the Third Opinion, and, if not, how and why do they disagree with the Third Opinion.
] (]) 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Are there any other questions?
===Thomas Sowell discussion===
] (]) 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>


:The source's reliability isn't in question, but the cherry-picked content focusing on Pallars is problematic.
This is the third time he's tried this, and he's already got two arbitration requests that have been declined. There is no consensus to add the information whatsoever, and CartoonDiablo is simply trying to use dispute resolution as a bludgeon to eventually get editors he disagrees with sanctioned. CartoonDiablo disengages from the talk page when he doesn't like the questions being asked, and does nothing to even demonstrate that the information he wants to put in is viable, never mind build any consensus. Compromise was attempted and didn't work. Enough is enough. ] (]) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:The third opinion didn’t resolve the dispute. The myth section should be removed as it contradicts credible sources and reality. If mythology is included, it should focus on Vellalars, not misattribute myths of Pallars.
:<br/>
:Edits were made to suit a narrative, misinterpreting the source. The outdated mythological origin section conflicts with documented facts and is unnecessary per WP:RSUW. ] (]) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


===First statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)===
:So I was disengaged (, )? And there is no comprimise between removing something for POV and not removing it; what you Arzel, Lionelt and others are doing is removing material because it doesn't fit your POV and are trying to find any baseless reason possible to do so (and might I add violating ]). The fact is consensus doesn't give editors the license to violate Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}
::You were disengaged for weeks, yes. As noted in the talk page. You've consistently violated policies in re-adding the information without discussion or consensus. ] (]) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Media Matters is a reliable source for facts and certainly a reliable source for its own opinions. However, if we want to say Sowell's comment "has been criticized by liberal groups such as...", we need a source that makes that observation. The ''DNC'' btw is not a "liberal group". This really belongs in the ] section, where we can combine praise and criticism. We need to avoid long criticism sections filled with anecdotes in all BLP articles. ] (]) 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::How is MMfA reliable, as it's a self-published, highly-partisan group? Furthermore, even if it ''is'' reliable, there is no consensus to include the criticisms by them and them alone, so why are we even having this discussion? ] (]) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::See the for example reliable sources noticeboard "Media matters (25th time asked)". You might also want to read the first 24 discussion threads and any ones that have been brought up since. ] (]) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::That link does not say that MMfA is a RS for factual information. One banned editor makes the stupid artgument that MMfA is equatable to FNC, it is not. MMfA, by it's own admission is currently dedicated to the destruction of FNC, there is simply no way in hell that such a source could ever be considered a reliable source for factual information. ] (]) 03:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Actually I forgot to include Hugetim but with his input there is no consensus. ] (]) 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::No consensus to add, yes. You've been trying to add it for a year and a half and have gotten pushback from countless editors. You still haven't quite gotten the hint. ] (]) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::When did this dispute start and what was the state of the article then? If a third party affirmed it's inclusion, wouldn't you need consensus to remove the information, not to add it? Thing is that "countless" POV edits don't override policy, which is what we should be talking about. ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::It appears that CD first started trying to add MMfA in January 2011, and was reverted within a couple days. This has been a slow burn since then, with a couple flareups, and you actually appear to be the first person in 18 months to back him up on this at the article. Multiple users have argued against its inclusion, and CD, to this point, refuses to justify its inclusion per policy. I have asked him a series of questions regarding the content at the talk page, and he refuses to answer them. He's fighting a lonely battle and is actively forum-shopping to get the result he wants at this stage. ] (]) 02:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::I think it's also worth noting that Thargor has done disruptive edits that violate ] (, ) which hold no validity outside of being POV edits. ] (]) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't think that is "worth noting" at all. The purpose of this noticeboard is not to help resolve disputes about the behavior of editors. There are other noticeboards for that. -- ] (]) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::It's done in the context of whether or not these are POV edits done with baseless justifications. As far as I can tell it's the only explanation for that as all. ] (]) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Regardless of context, it is not appropriate to use ''this'' noticeboard to label Thargor Orlando's edits as "disruptive" in order to make your case in a content dispute. -- ] (]) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::This is just an attempt to try and get users he disagrees with sanctioned. This is not an honest attempt to resolve the dispute, but a means to an end. We only need to assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary, and when a user comes into a talk page and says "it will result in sanctions" if we don't bend to his will, well... <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:35, 18 July 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:The MMfA website is a valid source for the opinions of MMfA. ] (]) 03:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::Maybe so. That doesn't make them a valid, noteworthy, or reliable source for criticism of anyone in particular. Especially when the consensus is overwhelmingly against using it. ] (]) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The point of taking issues to this board is to get the views of experienced editors. That you and a few other editors who do not understand policies have formed a "consensus" is of no interest to me. And as explained, editors like you have challenged MMfA countless times and have failed to persuade anyone. ] (]) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::That you assume I do not understand policies has not been proven even a little bit. Even if MMfA is a worthwhile source to use - something that has not been established, mind you - that does not mean we have the consensus to use it here. This is not a discussion in good faith, regardless, as CartoonDiablo believes DR to be about building a case for sanctions against editors, not to resolve a dispute. ] (]) 12:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::MMfA has been declared a "valid, noteworthy, or reliable source" now. The issue at hand is whether or not the source constitutes Undue weight or whether the editors are simply using POV exclusion. As of yet, none of the editors have even tried to justify why it would be considered undue weight. ] (]) 06:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure where you're seeing any consensus of any kind for your point of view there. It's undue weight because it's the bulk of criticism coming from one unreliable, hyper-partisan, self-published group. You lack the consensus to add it, nor have you justified why criticism from MMfA is noteworthy for inclusion in this article. ] (]) 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::That is your personal opinion but MMfA has been proven to be a reliable source , unless you have another argument for why its undue then there is no validity to the claim of undue weight. ] (]) 20:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think that's hyperbole, actually, but there doesn't actually seem to be consensus there that it's reliable. And you still haven't shown the consensus for using it at the Sowell article, either. Or why it's noteworthy enough for inclusion. You avoid those questions constantly. ] (]) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I'm surprised this is even an issue, quite frankly. The use of Media Matters for America as a reference is perfectly acceptable when used as an attributed primary source. Moreover, I think in this case the opinion of the organization is valid and useful, and doesn't fall foul of ]. Sowell's views are very much outside the mainstream, and MMfA offers a useful critique to draw from. -- ] (]) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Isn't calling Sowell's views "outside the mainstream" POV in itself? Furthermore, if we can note the criticism without using poor or blatantly partisan sources, shouldn't we? Because we can on one of the MMfA sections CD keeps re-adding. Furthermore, if only MMfA is criticizing something, is it worth noting even if the consensus at the page is that it's not? ] (]) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::No it is not POV to call Sowell's views outside the mainstream, since NPOV requires us to distinguish between mainstream and non-mainstream opinion. ] (]) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::And how is Sowell outside the mainstream? ] (]) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Exactly. And MMfA isn't "poor" or "blatantly partisan". All it basically does is report on right-wing media. -- ] (]) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's the definition of blatantly partisan! That's literally partisanship! ] (]) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


== Imran Khan ==
::::::::::::Sowell's writings have been ignored in the academic community - he is not even mentioned in any of the economics textbooks I have seen. If his views reflected the mainstream then there would be no need for a Tea Party, etc., because the main parties would already embrace these ideas. The comparison with MMfA is wrong btw, the opinions of a writer and the factual nature of his writing are mutually exclusive. ] (]) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I don't see what being "ignored" by the academic community has to do with much, but I'm unaware of him offering anything novel that would be published in such a way, either. You've not actually mentioned anything non-mainstream about his ideas, but I agree - the comparison with MMfA isn't the issue here, it's whether MMfA is a good source for the controversies in the Sowell article. To bring it back around, there are two controversies in the article - one that is noted by multiple third party non-self-published neutral sources, one that is ''only'' sourced by MMfA. We don't need the MMfA citation for the first controversy, and there's no disagreement that the controversy is worth noting. The question, then, is why do we need a controversy noted only by MMfA at all? What value is it? Why is it noteworthy simply because a hyper-partisan, self-published group notes it? ] (]) 20:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::MMfA is not the only source for the controversy, it's also cited by the DNC as well as well as Politico and the Washington Monthly. And even if MMfA was the only citation then it be warranted by its virtue as a reliable source. Again the only issue for whether it's undue weight (which is what this dispute resolution is about) would be if MMfA wasn't a reliable source. ] (]) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Last things first, the dispute is about MMfA as a source period. That you're complaining about some of the arguments against using MMfA doesn't change the dispute. As for the use of MMfA, there are two controversies listed: the Hitler comparison, which is sourced by plenty of neutral sources, and the race card comparison, sourced at the time of this dispute only by MMfA, but now also by PFAW, another hyper-partisan poor source. There's no question from anyone that the Hitler thing can and should stay - it's clearly noteworthy and can be sourced properly. The questions are: 1) why do we need MMfA for the Hitler comparison if we have neutral, reliable sources for it, and 2) why do we need the second criticism at all if only MMfA and extreme partisan groups notice it? It's not noteworthy enough, and it's not sourced well enough for inclusion. ] (]) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Whether or not you see it as a reliable source doesn't change the fact that it is and has been for a long time; this also answers (2), because it is reliable the second criticism is warranted. If your only argument for undue weight is that it's not a reliable source then this discussion could have been over two years ago. ] (]) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I agree with CartoonDiablo on this. It's not a question of "why do we need MMfA" so much as MMfA is okay so we can use it. Thargor is suggesting MMfA be discarded as a source in preference to others because Thargor doesn't like MMfA. I'm sorry, but that just isn't a good enough reason to discard a notable reliable source. -- ] (]) 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


==The Zeitgeist Movement==
{{DR case status}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 15:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737647781}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|IjonTichyIjonTichy|23:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|SheriffIsInTown|15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|The Zeitgeist Movement}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Disagreement on whether ] should be included in the 'See also' section. I believe the link should be included because, like the Zeitgeist movement (TZM), it seems Brown believes that the "monetary-market" economy must be replaced with a system based on equality among people, a moneyless and stateless system where e.g. exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. It seems that, like TZM, she believes the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt and unreformable. It seems that, like TZM, she believes an accumulation of monetary/ property wealth leads to centralization of power in the hands of a small elite. It seems that, like TZM, Brown believes the current wage-labor system must be abolished and replaced with a system in which people would be free to choose to perform voluntary activities and/or work fewer hours. Some of our secondary and primary sources (TZM documentaries, video lectures/ presentations, audio podcasts, newsletters, official blog, etc.) discuss ideas/ issues that seem very similar to sections of Brown's work. For example, Brown's essay and the (to view the translation of the Globes article, please scroll all the way to the bottom of the , which will take you to the translation of the TheMarker article, then scroll a little bit up, to view the translation of the Globes article.

This DRN is only about ].


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Imran Khan}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|SheriffIsInTown}}
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''
* {{User|WikiEnthusiast1001}}
* {{User|Veldsenk}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


The content removed in this had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing ] and ]. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, ] is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled ], published by ]. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, ].
:* {{user|Tom harrison}}
:* {{user|Earl King Jr.}}
:* {{user|OpenFuture}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


]
Yes.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>The Zeitgeist Movement<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


==== Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001 ====
We discussed on the talk page. It seems Tom may believe the link seems too peripheral to be useful to the reader, and more likely to confuse than clarify the subject. It seems Earl may be saying there is no connection except the usual suspects of cross connected tangential, and he wrote something about a maze. And it seems OpenFuture may believe the link is completely irrelevant. (It seems these were their responses to a larger group of links that I suggested for 'See also' which included Brown.)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially ], which states '''"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."'''


While the book was published by a reputable publisher, ]'s credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}}</ref> suggesting a potential motive for bias.


The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. ] (]) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


==== Summary of dispute by Veldsenk ====
* ''How do you think we can help?''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


=== Imran Khan discussion ===
Help resolve the dispute. Thanks.
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Is this dispute at least partly about ]? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at ] first, before any other content issues are discussed. ] (]) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a ]? If so, it might be answered more quickly at ]. ] (]) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. ] &#124; ] &#124; 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. ] &#124; ] &#124; 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 23:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)===
===The Zeitgeist Movement discussion===
I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read ] and ] ]. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a ]. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community.
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>


I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
:Can you provide details of a reliable external source that compares L. Susan Brown's beliefs to those of TZM? Or a statement from her making such a comparison? Without one, it is almost certainly ] to suggest that they are linked. ] (]) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:: We are talking about the See also section, not the body of the article. The rules for See also are not identical to those of the body of the article. "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." ] (]) 00:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Are there any questions? ] (]) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::True, ] allows links that are only "peripherally relevant" - but it would seem to me that the onus here is for you to demonstrate this 'relevance', and I can't see how you can do this without either finding a source that makes the link, or engaging in ]. Given that Brown is an anarcho-communist, and TZM says that it is neither anarchist or communist (as far as I'm aware), the link is hardly self-evident. ] (]) 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: I don't know of a source that mentions both TZM and Brown in the same source. If such a source existed, we would have used it in the body of the article, and thus there would be no need to include it in 'See also' ("As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes").
:::: To me, the relevance is in the close similarity in their beliefs, not in labels/ tags such as 'anarchism' or 'communism'. Labels tend to shut-down and close discussion and exploration, while one purpose of ']' is to broaden and open-up discussion, critical thinking and exploration ("enable readers to explore topics ....")
:::: And, of course, another, and important, reason to include the link is that it discusses ideas from a female and a feminist perspective. Given that almost all of the authors of our secondary and primary resources on TZM, as well as the majority of WP editors (including, it seems, the majority, if not all, of the currently-active editors on the TZM article) may be males. Given that many WP readers are females, it would be probably refreshing for them to browse our article on Brown and perhaps even read her article ('Does work really work'). Regards, ] (]) 01:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, but that all comes firmly under 'opinion' - and if TZM has a problem discussing ideas from a feminist perspective, it certainly isn't up to Misplaced Pages to fix it. ] (]) 02:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't think he's saying that Zeitgeist has a problem discussing ideas from a feminist perspective, merely that most of the sources on TZM are written by male observers, hence Misplaced Pages's coverage is overly masculine, and that a topic concentrating on a female perspective on many of the same issues would provide depth and context to the TZM article. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 07:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


===Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)===
:::::::Misplaced Pages's coverage is overly masculine? What? That sounds like opinion also. I think the point is to determine if the Brown material should be added to the article. The answer is no. Why??, because if that can of worms is opened then we have to add Plato, Marx, The Matrix, John Lennon and many other things equally not connected. That may be my opinion but its based on there not being any connection between Zeitgeist and the women in question. She is not a member nor a spokeperson. Is not connected in any way. Maybe she is a resource for the Zeitgeist site? But the page article now is overly over weighted with links to itself. There is also consensus on the talk page among multiple editors that Brown is not a ''good'' add. The talk page of ] is a good place to check on that ] (]) 08:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.


I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute:
The statistics (e.g. that most of WP's editors are male) are WP's own statistics. From ]: "When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for apparent antonyms. In 2011 Wales noted that the unevenness of the coverage is the reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young male with high educations in the developed world (cf. above)" Not only Wales, but other senior WP executives as well discussed the serious problem of low participation rates by women editors. Please see this , and this involving 7 women writers and 2 men.


Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in ] that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}}</ref> Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the ], leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref>
From the NYT article: "Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse,” argues that Misplaced Pages is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public." “In almost every space, who are the authorities, the politicians, writers for op-ed pages?” said Ms. Margolis, a senior researcher at the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at the University of California, Los Angeles. ... "According to the OpEd Project, an organization based in New York that monitors the gender breakdown of contributors to “public thought-leadership forums,” a participation rate of roughly 85-to-15 percent, men to women, is common — whether members of Congress, or writers on The New York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed pages. It would seem to be an irony that Misplaced Pages, where the amateur contributor is celebrated, is experiencing the same problem as forums that require expertise. But Catherine Orenstein, the founder and director of the OpEd Project, said many women lacked the confidence to put forth their views. “When you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own competencies,” she said."
] &#124; ] &#124; 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.
]] of the ] is correct. Among our secondary sources on TZM, only the Palm Beach Post and the RT TV interviews were by women. The HuffPo, NYT, Globes, TheMarker, VCReporter, etc. are written by males, and Misplaced Pages's coverage is overly masculine. The inclusion of Brown’s expertise, deep knowledge and perspective is helpful not just for the sake of fairness, but, more importantly, because it provides a female perspective that would supply depth and context to the TZM article.


I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Misplaced Pages policies, particularly ], ], and ], which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}}</ref> These claims have not been independently verified, failing Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As ] ], without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. ] (]) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
"Plato, Marx, The Matrix, John Lennon and many other things" are all irrelevant, because this DRN discussion is focused exclusively on L. Susan Brown. And ] does not say anything about requiring 'See also' links to be e.g. a member or a spokesperson etc. If Brown was e.g. a spokesperson or a member of TZM, we would have discussed her work in the body of the TZM article itself, and included the link to the WP article on Brown in the body of the TZM article, obviating the consideration of including her in 'See also.'


{{collapsetop|Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. ] (]) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
(Lastly, please note that everyone involved in this DRN thus far, i.e., Andy, Earl, Tom, OpenFuture, ]], and myself, are all males.)
:@] Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? ] &#124; ] &#124; 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


Regards, ] (]) 11:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::"please note that everyone involved in this DRN thus far...are all males." How do you know that? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


{{collapsebottom}}
:Whether a women writer should be included as a token representative of ''women'' in general to set a precedent of inclusion even though she is not connected to the subject? You can not provide a reliable external source that compares L. Susan Brown's writings or ideas to those of TZM? You can not add here a statement from her making such a comparison? Without that, it is ] to suggest that they are linked. ] talk page expands that discussion. ] (]) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) ==
:This is ridiculous. Misplaced Pages does not engage in tokenism. We aren't going to include a link to Brown in the article simply because (a) one of our contributors thinks that she is vaguely relevant, and (b) she is a woman. Or to put it in plain language, IjonTichyIjonTichy, we don't give a damn about your opinions on Brown, on feminism, or on the lack of gender balance amongst Misplaced Pages contributors. If you can't provide actual evidence that Brown merits inclusion in the 'see also' list, she doesn't. Please stop wasting our time with nonsense. ] (]) 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


{{DR case status|hold}}
:: I provided strong evidence that Brown merits inclusion. Her expertise, ideas, analysis and insights are almost identical to those of TZM. And including Brown in 'See also' would improve and enhance the article by providing depth and context. From ], Brown does not have to be directly related to TZM. And she is at least peripherally relevant. The inclusion of Brown provides critical thinking and enables our readers to explore, learn, and both broaden and deepen their knowledge and understanding. Regards, ] (]) 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- ] 19:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738093151}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Abo Yemen|19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
::Bollocks. ] (]) 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
::: Andy, may I respectfully suggest you read the NYT article and NYT discussion forum discussed in one of my earlier comments above. One of the main reasons that women are strongly discouraged from participating in Misplaced Pages is the atmosphere/ tone/ environment created by the use of language such as "we don't give a damn about your opinions," "please stop wasting our time with nonsense", and "bollocks". (This is not a personal attack on you. I learned by reading these two NYT articles and wanted to share with you.) Regards, ] (]) 21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

::::More bollocks. Time-wasting repetitive bollocks from a time-wasting producer of repetitive bollocks who repeats the same old bollocks repetitively, endlessly repeating the same old bollocks with the objective of repeating the same old repetitive bollocks repeatedly until people are tired of reading the same old repeated repetitive bollocks and give up trying to repeatedly argue against the time-wasting repetitive bollocks, allowing the time-waster to spin articles to support a viewpoint based on nothing but time-wasting repetitive bollocks. Repeatedly... ] (]) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:Actually, I wasn't arguing the point one way or the other, merely clarifying my interpretation of what you had written. I have only a tangential interest in Zeitgeist, and have never heard of Brown before this argument. I think if you want my actual perspective, it would be that See Also should be as inclusive as possible, and that you should only remove links from that section if it creates a possibly libelous connection in a BLP, or if the addition is vandalism. See also should represent those articles that could provide context to ideas and subjects of an article, and if an editor believes in good faith that an article will provide that context, it should be available to readers to make that judgement themselves. ]]<sub><small>]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">]</sup> 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

:: segment from here ] I think applies to ] He wants to add most of his interests from his Misplaced Pages user page and this segment of recent discussion gives an example of his circular maze like arguments and repetition as if the sheer weight of this repetition will change things. The talk page shows overwhelming support that his personal view as demonstrated on his ''user page'' his opinions and original research are not appropriate for the article. ] (]) 01:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::: ] would apply if I proposed to use ] to support a claim in the body of the TZM article, e.g. that the ] system is inherently corrupt and unreformable. But I've only included Brown in the 'See also' section and made no reference to her within the body of the article. If all WP policies applied exactly the same to 'See also' as they do to the main body of the article, there would not be a need for a separate section called 'See also'. WP policies for the main body are designed to, metaphorically speaking, narrow-down, limit and constrict the range of material eligible for inclusion in the main body. This relative narrowing, limitation and constriction is exactly one of the main reasons for the existence of 'See also'. 'See also' is designed to widen, broaden and open-up the range of material eligible for inclusion, relative to the main body of the article. (However, some limitations on 'See also' still exist, such as restricting it to links to other WP articles.) While the main body is designed to be relatively more exclusive, 'See also' is designed to be considerably more inclusive, to enable our readers to explore deeper and broader, to discover, investigate, examine, travel more widely, wander, delve into, and take a deep dive. To help our readers to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the context/ scope of the article (in this case, TZM's ideas and philosophy). ] (]) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Still bollocks. ] (]) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::This link would breach BLP policy. Completely uncalled for. Don't use See also to assert links that you can't show. ] (]) 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
How, exactly, would the link breach BLP policy? Thanks. ] (]) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:By implying that there was a link between L. Susan Brown and TZM, other than the one in your head? Or can I add a link to ] to to the article too, because former goalkeepers who think the world is run by shape-shifting lizards are under-represented both in Misplaced Pages and in TZM (or at least, I hope they are...)? ] (]) 18:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::There would be a breach of ] if we would have asserted in L. Susan Brown's ] that Brown is, for example, a member or a spokesperson or TZM. Including ] in the 'See also' section of the TZM article does not say or imply in any way, shape or form that Brown is e.g. a member or a spokesperson. Thus there is no breach of ]. Regards, ] (]) 19:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::::It implies there's a connection. And there so isn't. Now go and read some stuff about postcapitalisms or anarchafeminism or both. ] (]) 20:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::::: Dear Judith, I've read about postcapitalism and anarchafeminism. But I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word 'connection'. Are you saying there is no connection between the ideas/ philosophy of Brown and those of TZM? Because their ideas seem very similar. For example, her ideas about work in her and TZM's ideas in the Globes article, among other close similarities. Thanks, ] (]) 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:Put a cork in it. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your bullshit. You have just had a ridiculous complaint at ANI thrown out, and you are clearly lucky that your behaviour here didn't result in sanctions against you. Let it drop - find another way to promote your 'Movement' while pretending to be neutral. Apart from anything else, this is getting boring - you clearly have some intelligence, try to be a little more creative at least... ] (]) 19:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::I second that. Ijon, when first crossing paths with you on the article and seeing your editing I suggested that it might be a good idea, because of your burning Zeitgeist passion, to write a book on the subject. If it is notable then you might have more influence in general than you will on Misplaced Pages as an advocate. On the plus side, because of your editing, the article came under very intense scrutiny and the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally. That despite the fact that you have been trying to make it into a sing-song version of nuggets of Zeitgeist official information with strong doses of your personal philosophy mixed in. So, in a way you have succeeded in making the Zeitgeist, at least more well known for what they actually are, not because of your editing but despite it. ] (]) 01:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

==List of countries by beer consumption per capita==
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|Erikeltic|23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 23:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|List of countries by beer consumption per capita}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''

Anyone's comments are welcomed here. Basically there is a debate on a little-edited page's talk page about what the default sort should be. Should we have it setup alphabetically or by number? My position is stated on the talk page, but to restate it here -- the article is about the ''per capita'' consumption (a number) of beer. It seems reasonable that rather than sort the list of countries by where they fall in an alphabetical listing, it should be done by the number reflected in the wiki's content. That's how it's been for six years, until this week . In addition one of the other editors involved has now included a mini "help document" within the article to help the ''poor average reader'' sort the information properly. As you can see here and here there seem to be some ] issues going on here. I invite anyone willing to please comment. Thanks.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Abo Yemen}}
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''
* {{User|Javext}}

:* {{user|Erikeltic}}
:* {{user|Jbening}}
:* {{user|Timeshifter}}
:* {{user|Elockid}}

* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''

Yes.

* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>List of countries by beer consumption per capita<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''



* ''How do you think we can help?''
I invite people to weigh in on the article and to help explain how changes are applied. ] isn't being followed and the clear examples of ownership I listed above are making it very difficult to discuss the issue rationally.


]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]</span>)</span></sup> 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

===List of countries by beer consumption per capita discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>

I think the list should be ordered by per capita consumption when the reader first opens the page, because that is what he will expect to see. And I don't see why the list would be any harder to maintain in this order than it would be in alphabetical order. ] (]) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a remarkably premature resort to dispute resolution, regarding an issue of very little concern to anyone. The user who has called for resolution here was the only person writing on the article's talk page in favor of his position. So far, I've seen no evidence (there or here) that he has grasped the logic of the arguments being advanced against his position. If bringing the discussion over here can somehow cause more substantive discussion over on the article's talk page, then so much the better. But I've already articulated on the article's talk page what I think is the shared position of Timeshifter and myself, so I see no need to reiterate it here. ] (]) 01:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:I guess you missed the part where you should have read that Misplaced Pages isn't a ]. The bottom line (and this is why we have the ANI open to combat the ''other issues'') is that between you and Timeshifter taking turns reverting 1-2-1, the consensus, which has stood for six years, can't be restored without engaging in the edit war you guys started two days ago. That's it. (period) So, while you can call these "drama boards" and what not, the basic reason I came here is to request additional third party editors to comment on the discussion. ]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]</span>)</span></sup> 01:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:: This is the wrong forum for opinions on content. Try WP:3O ] (]) 01:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::According to WP:30, "If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. Please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard." We have more than two editors involved in this issue, so that's why I came here. ]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]</span>)</span></sup> 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

==War on Women==
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|CartoonDiablo|01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|War on Women}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the ]) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per ]). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.
The dispute is over whether it's an "attack" phrase or used as a "pejorative" in the lead. As it currently stands there are no reliable sources calling the phrase an "attack" phrase nor a pejorative. The editors' reasoning is that because it can be used to attack people (as an RS would say) that the lead it should say it is "used as an attack."


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
This violates ] and ] because it infers that the phrase is used ''solely'' to attack people when no RS makes such a claim. By that logic the phrase can mean policies that "attack women." The obvious mainstream interpretation is that it's simply a phrase used to describe policies. As well the editors have claimed consensus which cannot be used to violate Misplaced Pages policies.


]
For comparison, the phrase ] has four sources claiming it's a pejorative and doesn't claim to be an "attack" phrase or "used to attack" feminists. This by comparison has no sources for either. ] (]) 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous ]
:* {{user|CartoonDiablo}}
:* {{user|24dot}}
:* {{user|Morphh}}
:* {{user|OSborn}}
:* {{user|Kilopi}}
:* {{user|Lionelt}}
:* {{user|Arzel}}


==== Summary of dispute by Javext ====
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".
Yes.


Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>War on Women<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"
Discussed it on the talk page.


-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the
* ''How do you think we can help?''
11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."


I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:
Helping to decide whether or not the phrase can adequately be called an "attack" phrase, a "pejorative" etc. or whether its just a description of policies.


-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."
] (]) 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."
===War on Women discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>


So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)
Note: The thread in question is ]. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.
:Just for reference the lead that I proposed would say:
:<blockquote>The War on Women is a political phrase used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures to restrict women, especially with regard to reproductive rights.<blockquote>
:Right now the consensus is to add that it's a "pejorative" that's "used to attack" without any RS for either claim. The fact is no reliable source has ever claimed that it's a pejorative or that it's solely used to attack Republicans. ] (]) 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::I'll note that CartoonDiablo removes the qualifier that specifies this is an opinion, suggesting as a statement of fact that the initiatives restrict women. Of course, opponents would argue that they promote life, protect religious freedom, and that the entire thing is fabricated. Right or wrong, point is, it's an opinion that needs to be qualified. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)</i></small>
::I'll also note that sources have been provided and the majority of sources use the term as a charge against Republican policies. This is, however, not good enough for CartoonDiablo, as they don't specify that the term can be used "solely", "only", "exclusively" to attack the policies. As if one side proudly proclaims they voted for the "War on Women", which CartoonDiablo argues just describes a group of policies. I'm open to other language. I'm not married to the exact terms "attack" or "pejorative", but I do think we have to describe the combative charge implied by the term's use, which is supported by such use in reliable sources. The term by itself charges wrongdoing against women and Republicans are the recipients of that charge. In the vast majority of cases, someone invoking this term in political discourse is attacking certain policies as wrong. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)</i></small>


Thank you for whoever reads this. ] (]) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The overwhelming majority of the sources say its done to restrict or limit women; including the pro-life and religious arguments would be under ] and ], obviously there's a place for them but they are not the mainstream definition of the phrase.
:The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the ] and ] sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.}}<br>{{pb}}First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see ]). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the ''"Standford" University Press'' (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just ].{{pb}}{{tqb|1=The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory}}<br>{{pb}}Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in ] and in ]? Something doesn't make any sense here.{{pb}}Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did; <br>{{tq|1=For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, '''claiming''' that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.}}<br> Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.{{pb}}Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy}}<br>Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See ] and ], both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.<br>{{tqb|1=The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.}}<br>Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "{{tq|1=(as already stated in the sources above)}}" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...{{pb}}{{tqb|1=It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.}}<br>I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this ''']]''' 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::''"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."''
::.
::'''Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to ], the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.
::-'''
::''"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."''
::.
::'''You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.'''
::-
::''"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."''
::.
::'''What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..'''
::-
::''"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
::'' 'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.' ''
::''Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."''
::.
::'''I already responded to this above'''
::-
::''"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."''
::.
::'''Hello?? ''"defended itself from the invaders"'' - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary ''they were horribly routed''……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "'''
::-
::''"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."''
::.
::'''I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the ''Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."'''''
::-
::''"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."''
::.
::'''I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet wikipedia standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. ''"None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."'' Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out..''' ] (]) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion ===
:::That aside, sources do not call it an "attack" anymore then they say the policies are an "attack" on women, to show either you would need sources just like how the ] article has four sources for the claim that it's a pejorative. What they say is it's a description of policies, you can "attack" someone with that description or it can be used to "attack" women but neither supersedes the intention to describe the policies.. ] (]) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
:I briefly stated my position on the talk page where a rough consensus seems to be emerging and don't intend to add much to it here. The term is '''usually''' used by Democrats to criticize Republicans, and '''sometimes''' used by non-Democrats or to criticize non-Republicans. Despite CartoonDiablo's protestations, I have still '''never''' seen the term used to portray whoever is alleged to be waging the war in a positive or neutral light. I don't much care which sources are used (several have been suggested on the talk page) and am open to negotiation on the exact wording so long as it doesn't misrepresent the typical usage as attested by multiple sources. ] (]) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


=== Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
::None of the sources for the lead, (UniteWomen, NOW, Melinda Gates, GOP women etc.) are Democrats, claiming such would be ]. That aside, that would be your (Kilopi's) interpretation of the phrase but there is not a single reliable source claiming that the War on Women is a pejorative or used solely to attack Republicans which is what the lead is claiming.


I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of ]. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a ]; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are ] of this.
::As far as I can tell, the lead now is a misrepresentation of the phrase. ] (]) 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind ]. ] (]) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo claims there are no sources to support calling "War on Women" a pejorative or attack phrase, but The Hill, National Journal, Politifact and FactCheck sources provided on the Talk page all characterize the phrase that way. CartoonDiablo dismisses these claiming that War on Women is not used exclusively in a pejorative context but I have yet to see any other usage (to clarify: I recall hearing other usage but it was still as a pejorative and it was not regarding the issues the rest of the lede discusses) and regardless this is by far the main use.


=== Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
CartoonDiablo's proposed version biases () the page. As I remarked on the Talk:, the context of the phrase being a pejorative is extremely important to maintaining a NPOV. CartoonDiablo later went on the claim on the Talk: that "I don't think that would be proper because it's almost universally accepted that they are policies that restrict women, not just "charged" with doing it" which is quite non-neutral.
I have read and am willing to follow ]. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. <br><small>(Do we state what changes we want now?)</small> ''']]''' 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Yes. ] (]) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Alright,<br><u>Changes that I want to be made:</u>
::* I want the ] section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
::* The infobox should Include the ] with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text<ref>: {{tq|1=However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. '''With the apparent collusion of some Mahra,''' the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).}}</ref>
::* As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about ] and ]).
:: ''']]''' 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
This has gone round and round and the consensus from the Talk page is that the phrase should be characterized in the lede as a pejorative and/or attack phrase. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. ] (]) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


{{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, ] would be a better place to discuss it. ] (]) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:None of those sources claims the phrase is pejorative or that it's solely used to attack women, what it claims is that the phrase has been used ''in the action'' of attacking someone which isn't any kind of justification since any phrase can be used to attack anyone.
:I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because ]. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to ] all significant viewpoints should be included ''']]''' 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:By that logic these sources would warrant defining the phrase as an "attack on women":
::Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read ].
::If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. ] (]) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like from ] which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (] and a ] from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. ''']]''' 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?
::::Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? ] (]) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A{{pb}}https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 ''']]''' 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::What's the page in the last link? ] (]) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::sanaa uni's journal ''']]''' 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at ] ] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. ] (]) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


{{talkreflist}}
:* - The New Yorker
:* - U.S. News & World Report
:* - The New York Times
:* - ABC News
:* - Huffington Post
:* - The Guardian (this source is actually used)


=== First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
:Does that mean the War on Women should be defined as an "attack on women"? No it doesn't, but neither should it be defined as an "attack" on Republicans or a pejorative especially when there's less evidence for doing so. ] (]) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


:And secondly, consensus doesn't allow for violating Misplaced Pages policies and by defining it in the NPOV way it is right now that's exactly what the editors are doing. ] (]) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC) It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at ] and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? ] (]) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


{{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. ] (]) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are mistaken, those articles are using the phrase as a pejorative. They are instances of the pejorative being used. Incidentally, those are opinions pieces rather AFAIK more journalistic pieces like the Politifact source. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit ''']]''' 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Any updates on this? ] (]) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? ''']]''' 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins ''']]''' 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
:::The ABC News, Huffington Post and Guardian articles are not opinion pieces and none of the sources you cited claim it's "pejorative"; that is your interpretation of how the articles are "using the phrase" which would amount to ] and ].


== Habte Giyorgis Dinagde ==
:::Likewise in none of the articles I posted can it be deduced that it is an "attack on women." What the obvious mainstream opinion of the sources is that it's a description of the policies, it's neither an "attack" on Republicans nor is it an "attack" on women; to use either is to use WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. ] (]) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


::::Even in the sources that are not directly using the phrase (the non-opinion ones) the sources are reporting on others using the phrase in a pejorative fashion. As I stated on the Talk, the Politifact source mentions "... the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican ". At this point we are simply rehashing the discussion that has already taken place on Talk:. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::What "fashion" the sources are reporting on it is based on your (OSborn's) interpretation, not the actual sources. By that logic, the other non-opinion ones are using it in a "fashion" which says that it amounts to an "attack on women." Unless a reliable source explicitly calls it a pejorative or says it's primarily used to "attack" Republicans then your interpretation of it isn't any better than mine. ] (]) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::Do the sources contradict the phrase being a pejorative? They are simply the other half of the lede sentence, " argued to ". ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

==Colonial Athletic Association Football members==
{{DRN archive top|This can not be dealt with properly unless it is filed properly.] (]) 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)}}Looks like I'm in a bit of a pickle with ]. I was attempting to complete the football members on the page timeline, but Superman7515 pointed out the all-sports conference is a separate non-profit entity to the football only members with separate 990's. Superman7515 is insisting on a separate page for the football conference similar to the set up of the ] and the ]. There are differences. The Missouri Valley set up not only separates the business end (legal forms, etc), but also separates the marketing end by having separate web pages and separate copyright notices listed on the web pages. The Colonial Athletic Association only lists the separate legal filings (see ]. All the marketing, including the web site for the conference lists them as merged entities, and lists the football members as associate members. Any history like this with other conferences? Anyone know how to resolve? I'm OK with either a separate football conference page or one with all the sports team info, Superman 7515 evidently is not.........Seems a little bit of unnecessary duplication on the face of things if we go with separate pages....] (]) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:Actually I am okay with leaving them as one page, just not with marking them as "football associates" because the conference by-laws and legal filings say there is no such thing as a football associate. I can't see the opinions of people over-riding what the conference itself has ruled. Other than that, I'm fine with leaving them as one page as I've been editing the CAA page since 2008 and never had any interest in separating them as it would just make it more difficult. ] (]) 18:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::The Colonial Athletic Association web site refers to the single sport members (including football members) as associates. In addition, many other college sports conferences have associate members on their pages now....] (]) 19:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}

==Mylo Xyloto==
{{DR case status}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738554734}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Victor Lopes|21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Jpduke|03:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Mylo Xyloto}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A few days ago, I added a review from the Brazilian edition of Rolling Stone at the ] album article. However, the editor mentioned below removed it, saying it was "". I've added it back, but he kept removing it, stating also that the source wasn't notable (even though it is the Brazilian edition of one of the most important music publications of the world) and also said there was no need for it since there was already a review from the main Rolling Stone magazine (although the reviewers and the opinions were different). Some IPs also seemed to disagree with the content I was trying to add.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Habte Giyorgis Dinagde}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Jpduke}}
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''
* {{User|Magherbin}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


There is a dispute regarding two claims which were introduced in an edit. There was no talk page discussion before the edits were made and so far it has resulted in changing each other edits. The two claims that I believe are false are,
:* {{user|Jak Fisher}}
:* {{user|Victor Lopes}}


1. Claim that Habte Giyorgis fought for Hassan Enjamo:
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''
The user claims that Habte Giyorgis was captured while fighting under the Hadiya army led by Hassan Enjamo during the "holy war." This assertion has been challenged on the grounds that there is no verifiable source that directly supports this claim. The source that was cited suggest that Habte was captured earlier, during Ras Gobana's Gurage campaigns in the late 1870s, before Enjamo's rise to prominence and in no way directly say Habte fought for Enjamo.


2. Claim that Habte Giyorgis was from Hadiya or born in Hadiya:
Yes.
The editor introduced changes suggesting that Habte was born in Hadiya or had Hadiya origins. However, existing references explicitly identify Habte as being from Gurage or Waliso, on the border of Oromo and Gurage regions, with no direct connection to Hadiya. The sources used by "Magherbin" to support this claim are not explicit or verifiable as well, he uses two sources 1."Professor Lapiso" as an in-text source which is not cited in references and 2. Delibo which does not provide a clear verifiable connection to the claims.


Verifiability: The claims lack direct citation from reliable sources and rely on inference rather than explicit documentation. I have read all of the sources and all don't support the claims.
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Mylo Xyloto<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


Original Research: The disputed claims draw unsupported conclusions or extrapolate from unrelated historical facts
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
After I realized I was ], I created a section at the ] and ], but neither him nor other users have shown any interest in discussing the matter in the past three days.
Extensive Discussion in Talk page:


Posted Multiple Third Opinion requests spanning 4 weeks. I don't know how to link that.
* ''How do you think we can help?''


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
I just want someone to clarify if adding more reviews in a two-paragraph critical reception section is wrong, even if written in another language. There is nothing ] that suggests I shouldn't add that content only because there are already other reviews, and I assume there's nothing to discuss regarding the notability or the verifiability of the source. Even though it is said in the end of that project page that English sources are preferred, I've only added that material because it was saying something quite different from the other ones. I know few people may understand it, but I'd like editors to assume that I'm editing in good faith, that is, I'm adding correctly translated material written in my mother language.


I would like for a second opinion as discussions have broken down from the user. Facilitate a discussion to find consensus with the Magherbin. Evaluate whether the claims about Habte Giyorgis fighting for Enjamo and being from Hadiya meet Misplaced Pages's standards of verifiability and sourcing. I believe my reasoning was clear in the talk pages though I feel ignored and wanted to escalate the dispute.
]</span> ] 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Magherbin ====
===Mylo Xyloto discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


=== Habte Giyorgis Dinagde discussion ===
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I hate to be so cynical, but I doubt that this request will do much good. It should, actually, be closed because there has been no discussion on the article talk page, which is generally required before requesting content ] (and I may still do so). The bigger problem is that ] has almost a thousand edits here at Misplaced Pages and has never, ever, posted to a talk page or anywhere else on WP other than in articles and has only occasionally even given edit summaries. There is no set Misplaced Pages procedure to address that situation. You might make a request for page protection at ] or complain about him for continually reverting without edit summaries or discussion at ]. Regards, ] (]) 01:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


== List of WBC world champions ==
==Stephanie Adams==


{{DR case status|closed}}
{{DRN archive top|1=] has been blocked. Nothing to do ] (]) 00:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Blizzythesnowman|20:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed as problematic. The least serious problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. That could be corrected if it was reasonable to expect that the other editor will have the same user talk page, which is not reasonable. The other editor's IPv6 address is constantly shifting, as is usually the case with IPv6 addresses/ It doesn't see to be feasible to conduct dispute resolution with an editor whose IP address is constantly changing. The other editor is strongly advised to ] if they expect to be involved in dispute resolution. Otherwise they may be semi-protected out of disputed pages. Also, this dispute seems like a minor matter that could easily be handled by a ]. Resume discussion at the article talk page, or request a ]. ] (]) 05:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|Hal 9000 Jr.|23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 23:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|Stephanie Adams}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|List of WBC world champions}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Blizzythesnowman}}
* {{User|2601:3C5:8180:31D0:9CC3:C472:A191:D79F}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


A user wishes to add a new highlight that signifies the boxer with the most title defenses across all weight classes. Since it only highlights one boxer, I believe that the highlight isn't needed and it can be stated in the lead paragraph.
There is currently an excessive amount of contentious posting taking place on Talk:Stephanie Adams. The primary bone of contention seems to be over her teaching a Learning Annex course on "How to Marry Rich," the tone of which seems to suggest disparaging intent. Without relevant amplification, what's the point of inserting this information? And if maligning Stephanie Adams isn't the intention of those who support the insertion, then why are they so dogged in their attempts to add it? Admittedly, I visited the page because I'm a fan of the subject, and I was floored to find Armageddon on the talkpage. Obscenities and personal attacks are being hurled back and forth throughout, and no Misplaced Pages admin has done anything to bring this flagrant lack of professionalism to a halt. Please make a determination on this matter.
] (]) 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''


This was discussed in the talk page: ]
:* {{user|Delicious carbuncle}}
:* {{user|Fasttimes68}}
:* {{user|Errant}}
:* {{user|Hoary}}
:* {{user|Milowent}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


To give verdict on what edit to follow and or a compromise.
Yes.


==== Summary of dispute by 2601:3C5:8180:31D0:9CC3:C472:A191:D79F ====
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Stephanie Adams<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


=== List of WBC world champions discussion ===
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''
{{DRN archive bottom}}


== Movement for Democracy (Greece) ==
None but to contact a Misplaced Pages admin for conflict resolution.


* ''How do you think we can help?''

Make a determination on the matter.

] (]) 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

===Stephanie Adams discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div>

{{DRN archive bottom}}

==Date Windowing deletion proposal and Shadowjams misconduct==
{{DRN archive top|wrong venue. Try ] or ]] (]) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{DR case status}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 18:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738866337}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Fresheneesz|02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|77.49.204.122|18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
* {{pagelinks|]}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
* ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
] has repeatedly ignored ] and ] when marking pages for deletion and interacting with myself and other (completely unrelated) users. You can see clearly from ] that he completely ignores my attempts to discuss his deletion proposal of ], and only responded after I started investigating his conduct with other users. I listed a few cases on his talk page where he has made incorrect edits and then either ignored the users who have come to his talk page to discuss them, or wasn't cooperative with those users.
:I responded in detail on my talk page. This user is badgering me because I nominated an article they created. They then dug through my edit history to find some supposed faults of mine. I've responded multiple times to them on my talk page and they're just going around in circles with the same claims. ] (]) 05:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:: I did mention your response to my "badgering". However, the only things you really responded to were the diffs I enumerated. You simply ignored my comments about your afd, you ignored my point about non-notability, you ignored all my points about how you ignore *other* users as well. As a matter of fact, your response here again ignores the fact that I said "''he completely ignores my attempts to discuss his deletion proposal of ]''" - which is as a matter of fact, what started this whole thing. ] (]) 09:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Movement for Democracy (Greece)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Hellenic Rebel}}
* ''Who is involved in the dispute?''
* {{User|Rambling Rambler}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.
:* {{user|Shadowjams}}
:* {{user|Fresheneesz}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
* ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)''


* ] *] *] *] *] *]
Yes


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
* <small>''To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Date Windowing deletion proposal and Shadowjams misconduct<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small>


We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span>
* ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


==== Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel ====
I have attempted to talk to him about his proposal for speedy deletion on ], I've attempted to talk to him about ] on his talk page, and I've attempted to talk to him about his conduct toward other users on his talk page.
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler ====
* ''How do you think we can help?''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.


However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.
I'm wondering if I'm perhaps misunderstanding the policies of ] and ], and if not, informing me how I can deal with a non-cooperative administrator who I believe is hurting the wikipedia community.


The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.
] (]) 02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well.
:As said below, I'm not an admin, nor have I claimed to be one. ] (]) 05:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.
:: Fine. You're certainly involved enough though. The point here is not whether or not you're an admin, my concern is about your conduct. ] (]) 09:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


=== Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion ===
===Date Windowing deletion proposal and Shadowjams misconduct discussion===
<div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*While it doesn't really effect the discussion here, it should be clarified that ] is not an admin. ]] 02:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:* You're right on both accounts. I assumed that he was based on the fact that he has rollback rights and uses special tools. ] (]) 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}

Latest revision as of 22:47, 9 January 2025

Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
Skip to Table of Contents
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

    This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

    Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
    Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?
    Request dispute resolution

    If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

    • This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
    • We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
    • The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
    • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
    • Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
    • Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
    If you need help:

    If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

    • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
    • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
    		 Become a volunteer

    We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

    Volunteers should remember:
    • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
    • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
    • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
    Open/close quick reference
    • To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
    • To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
    Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
    Title Status User Time User Time User Time
    Autism In Progress Oolong (t) 20 days, 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 18 hours RIT RAJARSHI (t) 7 minutes
    Sri Lankan Vellalar Closed Kautilyapundit (t) 18 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 17 hours
    Imran Khan New SheriffIsInTown (t) 14 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 14 hours WikiEnthusiast1001 (t) 2 days, 5 hours
    Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) On hold Abo Yemen (t) 9 days, 3 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 3 days, 7 hours Abo Yemen (t) 3 days, 7 hours
    Habte Giyorgis Dinagde New Jpduke (t) 3 days, 18 hours None n/a Jpduke (t) 3 days, 18 hours
    List of WBC world champions Closed Blizzythesnowman (t) 2 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 16 hours
    Movement for Democracy (Greece) New 77.49.204.122 (t) 4 hours None n/a 77.49.204.122 (t) 4 hours

    If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
    Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 22:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


    Archived DRN Cases

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
    61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
    71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
    81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
    91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
    101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
    111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
    121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
    131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
    141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
    151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
    161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
    171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
    181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
    191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
    201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
    211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
    221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
    231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
    241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
    251, 252


    This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.


    Purge this page to refreshIf this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
    Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

    Current disputes

    Autism

    – Discussion in progress. Filed by Oolong on 15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.

    On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.

    Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.

    This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.

    A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

    Talk:Autism Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions] Related: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.

    Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.

    This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders). This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references.

    Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.

    In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.

    While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.

    Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.

    There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
    My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Summary of dispute by TempusTacet

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Oolong, let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the #First statements by editors (Autism) section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the Misplaced Pages:Edit requests process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use Template:Text diff if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph.
    (I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
    Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0

    (Pardon. My mobile IP keeps changing). I completely agree to the viewpoints supported by user @Oolong. I also want the people to know that there is no such division between "pathological symptom" and "non-pathological symptom". They are same features of a communication and socialization "disorder" where more than one neurotype is involved. It is the same, impairing symptom that can be credited to either neurotype, but unfortunately attributed to the cognitive minority solely. Although the article covers some aspects of neurodiversity perspective, still its language is too much negative and pathological, which isn't very helpful or uplifting for Autistic individuals. Too much importance given in biological causes and "epidemiology", while the more useful sress should have been on accommodation, accessibility, and AAC (Alternative Augmentative Communication). Trying to conceal the harmful effects of ABA therapies is misleading and un-encyclopedic. 2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
    Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Note: Editor is "done with the discussion" and will not be participating. --Oolong (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Autism discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)

    I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;

    • Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
    • Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it.
    • Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
    • Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
    • Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.

    In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).

    I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
    I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
    Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
    I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is Autism and Scientism (published in the Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal) and Autism, Misplaced Pages and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    First statement by possible moderator (Autism)

    I asked for specific statements of how the lede section should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read Be Specific at DRN. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of reliability describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the lede section should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by reliable sources, and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by medically reliable sources. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the medically reliable standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary standard of reliable sourcing.

    If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the lede section. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the lede section, and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised lede section. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues.

    I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as First statements by editors (Autism), because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic talk page guidelines are met.

    After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the lede section, I will know better whether DRN is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks @Robert McClenon! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years.
    @Димитрий Улянов Иванов has has said that he won't "have the time to consistently respond within 48 hours. Hopefully that is not a strict requirement" - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there?
    I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Misplaced Pages guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... Oolong (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Oolong@Robert McClenon I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):
    " Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. "
    2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    First statements by editors (Autism)

    1. what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same

    The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field.

    Let's take the opening paragraph.

    Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; deficits in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context.

    I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted.

    Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted:

    The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common signs include unusual responses to sensory stimuli.

    Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. Condition is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of disorder, although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent deficits in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see double empathy problem); the difficulties, however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term symptom to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics.

    I recently edited the third paragraph simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that administrators' noticeboard for incidents may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues.

    The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for applied behavior analysis

    Above entered by Oolong

    Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change.

    Classification goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both diagnosis and signs and symptoms.

    We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals.

    Possible causes should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise epidemiology.

    Management is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the gender dysphoria entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around access: access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on.

    Prognosis probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten.

    History and especially society and culture probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article.


    Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough?

    --Oolong (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. . doi:10.1177/1362361315588200 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134030/. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

    Second statement by moderator (Autism)

    My explanation about source reliability is my own interpretation, based on the principle to use common sense. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion.

    The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses.

    The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the lede. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the lede paragraph.

    In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement DRN Rule A.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    The provision about responding within 48 hours is in DRN Rule A, which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    "The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon Hi there, I have a question following your third statement. I would like to clarify the issues with the proposed lede change, and with the interpretations of "models", but I'm unsure as to where I should write this out here and if this is necessary to do at the moment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon Respected editor, I have noticed a miscommunication. Although I could not read the rules and formats of dispute resolution; and also did not took part in the dispute resolution due to mental health issues, I want to notify that since some of my talk page comments have been marked as relevant by various editors; I plea for forgiveness regarding unintended miscommunication(s). I have just discovered at least two editors have wrote regarding "at least one user not being familiar" (probably I am the intended user) "not knowing" the use of "et al". But this is totally a miscommunication mainly originating from my side.
    I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic.
    I know, some of my conversation was not nice, including Talk:Autism#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213134300-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241213132400 or me venting out the stresses on several place such as Talk:Autism rights movement#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900-Ongoing dispute in the Misplaced Pages page on Autism, attentions needed , which was suspected or condemned as canvassing Talk:Autism rights movement#c-Pinecone23-20241217174100-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900 . I apologize for all these (and if any other) miscommunication, and I realize that the nature of this topic is so stressful for me that it would be better for me to stay off from this discussion by all and every means.
    I ask for forgiveness to the every respected editors. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi, sorry to ask in this rather odd place, but something seems to have gone wrong with this page - when I click 'edit' on any of the relevant sections, it goes to either edit the entire page, or a different, unrelated section (and either way, the visual editor isn't available).
    I assume something has gone weird with the markup somewhere, but I have no idea how to diagnose problems of this type! Oolong (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Try a "hard refresh" (⌘+⇧ Shift+R on a Mac; I don't know what the equivalent is on Windows). If that doesn't work, drop by my talk page with a link to the section you want to click the button in, and then tell me which section actually opens for you, and what kind of a computer you're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R on everything else. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Second statements by editors (Autism)

    List of Perceived Relevant Discussions

    I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    To my knowledge, the relevant discussions have not occurred outside of the article's talk page.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you, you are perfectly correct. My apologies. More accurate to say that the discussion about the use of et al was an irrelevant and separate issue to the topics here, and was due to a miscommunication rather than you being unfamiliar with the term. I would forgive you but I don't think you've done anything wrong here at all! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I ask for forgiveness from all the respected editors for this very unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Third statement by moderator (Autism)

    Please read DRN Rule G. This is the new set of rules for this mediation.

    Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it.

    In the proposed lede by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads:

    Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments.

    That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is verifiable because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice.

    I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material.

    Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk)

    Third statements by editors (Autism)

    I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Misplaced Pages article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted.

    I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Misplaced Pages (Deafness) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. Urselius (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    List of discussions from WhatamIdoing

    I think the present dispute started about two months ago:

    I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    As far as I know, most of the disputed edits and discussions are at this one article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing ::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I ask for all editors' forgiveness on this unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @RIT RAJARSHI, please do not worry. I added this note so that Robert would know that it was a perfectly innocent and unimportant thing, so he would focus on the other (non-tangential) comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Response and list of discussions from FactOrOpinion

    Since you (Robert McClenon) have posted a "Third statement by moderator," I'm guessing that I should respond in this "Third statements by editors" section, even though I never posted anything in the First or Second statements sections. I've read DRN G and agree to it. As I noted earlier, I haven't been involved for that long. I haven't read any of the archived discussions. I have only read comments on the current talk page, though not all of them, and I responded in even fewer sections. My list:

    FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    I made I talk page topic where I complained about "symptoms" being in the lead, but because I'm on phone and it's allmost 3:00 ill find it later. Anthony2106 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


    Fourth statement by moderator (Autism)

    At this point, I want to clarify the overall approach that we are taking or will take. First, is the main issue the overall viewpoint with which autism is discussed? The current article discusses autism almost entirely as a medical condition. Is the main issue that some editors think that the article needs an overall rework to state that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a medical condition or disorder, and that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a human condition or a neurotype. Is that the main issue? If my understanding is correct, then I agree, because the neutral point of view is to describe the different views of different reliable sources. If that is the main issue, do we have at least rough consensus that the article should be revised accordingly? If there is a rough consensus that the article should be reworked in that way, then we need to rewrite the lede section first, and then to rework the rest of the article to be consistent with and expand on the lede. If there is disagreement with that approach, then a Request for Comments will be needed to formalize the change in viewpoint, but I will want the RFC to provide a revised lede, rather than just a statement of principle. So we need to start work on rewriting of the lede if we agree that the article should describe the multiple viewpoints, of which the medical model is one.

    So I will restate my first question, which is whether our objective is to revise the perspective of the article to describe multiple viewpoints. Please at least answer yes or no. If you answer no, please state what you think we should be doing to improve the article (or to leave it alone).

    If we have at least rough consensus that the end objective is to improve the article by describing other views of autism besides the medical model, then we will proceed to rewrite first the lede and then the body.

    A second question has to do with a comment that efforts to neutralize the wording of parts of the article (to make the autism-neutral) have been reverted. If so, who did the reverting? I would like to invite any reverting editors to participate in this discussion.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Fourth statements by editors (Autism)

    Yes, revising the article to include information about autism as a human condition or a neurotype, supported by citations to the best reliable sources, will improve the article. Here is a quote from a reliable source that highlights this issue:

    Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) which is associated with alterations in structures and mechanisms underlying behavior, has traditionally been viewed as a harmful condition. However, there is a contrary position, which may be particularly relevant to milder cases of ASD. In this view, the positive attributes associated with ASD (e.g. high levels of creativity and mathematical ability) are emphasized and neurodiversity is celebrated, shifting the onus onto neuro-typical society to accommodate neuro-atypical persons. However, despite the growing prevalence of persons with ASD who choose to see themselves as situated on a spectrum of normal variation, there are many individuals and families who seek health interventions or advocate for more scientific research to cure or prevent ASD. These disagreements are perhaps indicative of the heterogeneous and dimensional nature of both ASD and its impact; in severe cases care rather than accommodation is required. Thus, judgments about whether or not an entity should be included in the nosology require careful assessment of the extent to which social accommodation is possible. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: In my first sentence (above), I changed the hyperlink destination for reliable sources from WP:MEDRS to WP:RS because I agree with Oolong (below) that, as WP:MEDRS itself indicates in the first paragraph, biomedical information in any article should comply with WP:MEDRS, and general information in medical articles should comply with WP:RS. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    • My answers:
      • Question 1: Yes, I think that this (medical vs non-medical POVs) is the main dispute. However, because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to re-write the body first.
      • Question 2: For recent reverts, you might look at these: I believe that everyone involved is either already here or knows this is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


    Thank you for the summary and helpful questions.

    Yes, the main issue is as you described; I'm not sure what determines a 'rough consensus' exactly, though. We have many people making the case for it, with one extremely strident dissent from that potential consensus; and one or two other editors broadly agreeing with him, without getting very much involved. This dispute, in a broad sense, predates the six months or so of his active involvement, though - a look through the Talk:Autism/Archive index (and, for completeness, Talk:Autism spectrum) will show that closely related arguments have been cropping up regularly since, I suspect, the start.

    One recurring theme has been the over-application (from my perspective, at least) of WP:MEDRS. The guideline itself states that "Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not" - but the boundaries of what does and does not fall under that rubric are not always clear. In this case, we have to ask whether the experiences and perspectives of autistic people ourselves are 'general information' or whether they are, perhaps automatically "Attributes of a disease or condition". There are likely to be grey areas like meltdown and burnout, where it is not necessarily clear which kinds of reliable sources we can lean on.

    Whatamidoing has a point about the lead vs the entire article; it is traditional for the lead to follow the lead of the article as a whole, as it were. However, to the extent that we are talking about language use, perhaps it makes sense to make the lead more balanced even before we fix the whole of the rest of the article - which is an absolutely huge job, because the article is extremely overlong, and dreadful on multiple levels: repetitious, poorly structured, self-contradictory, out-of-date, with a series of gaping holes, and overwhelmingly written in a way that takes a pathologising perspective for granted. My impression is that it is so poorly maintained largely because disputes along these lines have consumed so much of the energy that could otherwise have gone into improving the article.

    In case it's of interest, I ran a survey a couple of months to gather opinions and impressions of the entry (and Misplaced Pages's autism coverage more broadly) - I wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was! You can see the full responses here, but the standout result is that out of 31 respondents who'd seen it and formed an opinion, the mean rating for the question 'How well does the main Autism entry reflect your own experiences and understanding of autism?' was 3.25 out of 10.

    Regarding your question about reversions, one editor has made a total of 29 reversions, often with very misleading edit summaries (e.g. compare description here with what the sources referred to actually are; I am aware that this process is supposed to steer clear of conduct issues, but as WP:CPUSH discusses, it can be hard to keep them separate). I am not aware of much other reverting that has happened lately.

    --Oolong (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    (I believe that shows 88 edits, not 88 reverts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Replying here to correct egregiously misleading statements about me. Several other editors, other than myself, have extensively reverted edits on the article, as has the above poster, but this context has been omitted. Furthermore, the list of reversions cited are also implicated in different topics, not just the ones in this mediation, making the implication of "one editor" reverting things a generalised and selective representation of the edit history on the article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the moderator my lie was here: Sorry this last one was rude: but I don't undo too much. Anyway lets not talk about each other too much because the moderator said "Comment on content, not contributors". Anthony2106 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    No problem, I agree we should focus on commenting on the content, i was only responding to the implied misconduct accusations about me as I feel that these have the potential to undermine a constructive mediation. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi, I see you are replying to me directly. I think this is specifically what Rule G.11 is about, but as long as we're doing this: based on searching the edit history, it looks like there have been a total of 35 reversions over the last six months, 29 of which (83%) were by you, while around half of the remainder were reversions of your reversions.
    Perhaps a more thorough systematic search would turn up slightly different results; perhaps I have missed something; but I do not think that any part of my comment above is 'egregiously misleading'.
    The moderator specifically asked about reversions, which is why I made a stab at quantifying them. Oolong (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think that your dissection of the problem is entirely accurate. Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to treat medical conditions have been used to assert that anything not adhering strictly to these guidelines is either inadmissible, or be treated as subordinate, or more extremely as 'fringe'. Autism is classed as a neurodevelopmental condition that is amenable to clinical diagnosis, but it also has social, communication and identity aspects that most medical conditions do not possess. As an example, the medical model highlights deficits in communication, but research has shown that communication between autistics is just as accurate as communication between allistics, problems exist only when autistics try to communicate with allistics. This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles? To my mind there are two current viewpoints concerning autism, both having reputable supporting literature, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both are useful methods of describing autism, they even overlap to some extent, both have validity and both should be treated in a similarly full, dispassionate and encyclopaedic way on Misplaced Pages. Urselius (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    "autistics try to communicate with allistics" is the double empathy problem, you should of linked that because I don't think I'm allowed to edit your comment. You said "This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles?" this indicates a difference because I like talking to autistic people a little bit better or at least I seem to make less mistakes (but non-autistic familiy members (or close people) always understand you because they know you well). autistic people say the neurotypical's are puzzling (they are just very uniform) the neurotypical's think we are puzzling, so they said we are disorded. We aren't but they aren't gonna change the name. If we were all autistic then no one would be "disorded" right? but that's off topic. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think that a move away from introducing autism as it is now in the article, would be beneficial. At present, we effectively have, Autism is ... then the reader is immediately launched into verbatim or edited definitions from diagnostic manuals, eventually followed by some mention of non-medicalised aspects, as a sort of aside. This gives the medical model of autism a rather erroneous place as THE defining model. The introduction should start with content that is not weighted in one direction, that all can agree on. I would see this as an expansion of something along these lines: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental lifelong condition characterised by differences in brain architecture and function. It has been linked to genetic and environmental factors and is defined by a range of behavioural, communication and sensory features. These features can vary widely between autistic individuals, hence autism is called a spectrum condition". "Two differing interpretations of autism are currently recognised, the medical model and the neurodiversity model." Following some similar sort of opening, both models can be described, beginning with the medical model, where the material from the diagnostic manuals can go, with the neurodiversity material following. Most of the aspects in the body of the text can follow roughly the same structure. Urselius (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Fifth statement by moderator (Autism)

    Thank you for your responses. I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources.

    I would like to be able to close out the moderated discussion and resume normal editing to resume in no more than two to four months. I know that it may take longer than this to finish rewriting the article, but I would like to be able to step back from the rewrite in less than six months.

    I am aware that it is the recommended usual practice that lead follows body. I think that this is a special case in which a rewriting of the lede may simplify rewriting the body. If there is opposition to the change in viewpoint, then revisions to the sections of the body may be reverted as inconsistent with the lede, which will require multiple RFCs to formalize the change in emphasis. It is true that if the lede is rewritten first, it may then be later necessary to do a second rewrite to be consistent with the revised body, but I would like to get the change in viewpoint established earlier, rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. If anyone knows of a way to formalize the change in viewpoint other than by changing the lede, I am willing to consider it. I don't like the idea of an abstract RFC saying to change the emphasis of the article. I am ready to consider a coordinated approach to rewriting the body first, but I would like first to see a description as a coordinated approach. I am aware that we may need to revise the lede twice, once at the beginning and once at the end. I just don't see a way to get the rewriting of the body on a consistent basis without first rewriting the lede the first time.

    I will restate the rule of reliability of sources. When autism is discussed as a medical condition, sources must satisfy the standard of medically reliable sources. When autism is discussed as a human condition, or in a cultural context, sources must satisfy the general standard of reliable sources. In particular, material that is sourced to sources meeting the general standard of reliability but not the medical standard of reliability should not be rejected unless the context is medical or psychiatric.

    Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion after responding to my questions. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    72 hours have not passed per the rules since your last statement, I'm still in the process of writing a response. There are substantial issues with the arguments for the proposed lede changes which have remained unaddressed. These include the lack of reliable sources opposing the global scientific consensus, and that the consensus is demonstrably not isolated to a medical context, and so the medical interpretation of the evidence is a gross misrepresentation for basis to rewrite the lede. May I elaborate on these issues in a statement without this DRN prematurely concluding and normative editing resuming? I did make a request in a prior reply if I can do this, but I didn't receive any response. Thank you. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Two quick questions:
    1. Would it be appropriate to post a notification of this discussion/process on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Autism?
    2. Would it be appropriate to reinstate the {{unbalanced}} tag on the autism page while this work is ongoing? We seem to have something close to a consensus that it is indeed unbalanced. Oolong (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement 5.1 by moderator (Autism)

    Perhaps I wasn't clear about at least one aspect of my approach to the lede rewrite. After the draft revision of the lede is developed, I recognize that there may be disagreement with it. If there are disagreements with it, there will be a Request for Comments to obtain community input and establish community consensus. While the RFC is in progress, other discussion of the lede will be on hold, although there can be discussion of edits to the sections of the body of the article. So this DRN will not conclude prematurely. I hope that this is clear. A rewrite of the lede will be a draft rewrite, to be followed by an RFC, which will accept it or reject it. This will give editors who agree with the draft and disagree with the draft rewrite thirty days to present their cases to the community. Any decisions as important as changing the lede will not be made by local consensus here but by the community. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have residual concerns. First, from my understanding, the rules state that we have 3 days to make a statement responding to the moderator's statement. However, just one day after, you issued statement 5.0 in which you basically concluded that there is agreement to move the article away from a "medical position". This is not a fair assessment as I was in the midst of writing my statement to demonstrate how that assertion is highly inaccurate as well as provide further countering evidence. As such, there is no such agreement, making it as well as support for the medical interpretation of the evidence, prematurely concluded. Additionally, in my initial statement I cited the citations demonstrating the global scientific consensus and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies on its importance, which have not been acknowledged in any responding statements as of yet. Please may you redact these conclusions, or alter them accordingly, based on considering my newest statement?
    Second, we initiated this DRN process to seek an assessment from a neutral moderator because discussions on the talk page have been marred by persistent misrepresentation of arguments and citations, among other issues. Does "community consensus" in this context refers solely or primarily to the participants in this DRN from the article talk page? Without relying on external mediators, this risks replicating the same issues in the talk page. We would just be reiterating the same points already made in the talk page to the same users.
    And I seem to be the only active participant for maintaining the current general framing of ASD in the article. Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN. I hope you can understand my concerns that this would ultimately skew any perceived consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Fifth statements by editors (Autism)

    I like your proposed plan and your rationale, i.e., to start with a new lede, that will likely require revision down the road, but that will serve as a framework for revising the body of the article. I also appreciate your clear, coherent statement about reliable sources. Thank you for your hard work on this. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Your proposal makes sense to me, and I am quite grateful for your willingness to devote such a long period of time to moderating the discussion so that headway occurs in improving the article. As I said earlier, I can only contribute in limited ways here, but I will continue to read the exchanges, and will contribute when I think I can be helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I also support your proposal, and (just to be clear) your decision to use Rule G. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hopeful that we can make progress a lot faster once we have overcome some of the roadblocks preventing edits to date.

    Dmitriy's concern about being the only neurodiversity-opposing participant in this process is understandable - I did try to include at least two others when I initiated this, but they have not joined. This is one reason I suggested notifying Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Autism; historically, other editors broadly sharing his outlook have been much more involved. It might be best if he were not the only participant representing the pro-pathologisation side of this discussion, given our goal is presumably to produce an article which is acceptable to people with a range of personal views on these subjects. --Oolong (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


    Sixth statement by moderator (Autism)

    I will again restate, and maybe clarify, about consensus. Any contested changes to the article will be made only by community consensus, which is obtained by an RFC, which runs for thirty days and is formally closed by an uninvolved editor. A majority of the editors in this DRN is only a local consensus and will not change the article substantively.

    I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article. I think that revision of the lede should precede the revision of the sections of the body of the article, but am ready to consider a plan for a coordinated effort to rewrite the sections of the body first. Editors who want to leave the article more or less as it is may either provide a statement supporting their view, or nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sixth statement by editors (Autism)

    In answering the moderator's question, I see two main issues implicated in the dispute. First is, whether - or the extent to which - ASD should be framed in the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and risks/causes. The second issue regards compliance with due weight based on the sources.

    Addressing the First Issue

    Due weight and neutrality on Misplaced Pages do not indicate that two contrasting viewpoints ought to be presented equally or be of comparable influence in the terminology used in articles. The reliable sources substantiating positions need to be weighed in based on their reputability and the consensus of them in the field. For further details, see Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:scientific_consensus.

    Around the world, the developers of scientific guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews, etc. unanimously conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels (for references, see list of references). Additionally, some of these references are essentially developed by a unification of scientists. For example, the Misplaced Pages article concludes that ASD in the ICD-11 was "produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".

    The idea that this global scientific consensus is localised to the context of medicine is highly inaccurate. The references pertain to a wide array of subfields and contexts related to ASD, clearly substantiating a general scientific consensus for the validity and application of the terminology - not just in a medical context. For a list of quotes documenting this, see list of quotes.

    In fact, many of the references are not medically based at all, with some such as the international guidelines from ESCAP concluding that no medicines exist to reduce the core symptoms of ASD, and as such, is irrelevant to the primary purposes of the guideline and thus gets a minor mention. Another example to demonstrate, are the standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. The 23rd citation in the Misplaced Pages article (Nelson, 2020) also concludes "the fact that autism is a disorder does not entail that medicalization is the only course".

    Addressing the Second Issue

    The references given to support the opposing perspective are insufficient relative to the scientific consensus. If we exclude the blog post citations (because they are considered unreliable according to Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources), one editor has provided the following sources per their edit to alter the third lede paragraph:

    A link to A PDF stored on thedigitalcommons.com, apparently authored by Tom Shakespear. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal, and has a single author.

    A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD.

    In a prior discussion, which I cannot locate as it appears to have been archived or deleted, they have also cited a text-book and other advocacy papers or trade books which advocated against framing ASD as a neurodevelopmental disorder.

    Relying on these is problematic for several reasons. First, as shown in list of references, other peer-reviewed reports and textbooks disagree with the above articles. Thus, they cannot be selectively relied upon for the general framing of ASD in the lede. Second, these sources are advocating for something that is not currently established and as such, cannot overturn the scientific consensus classification of ASD as it stands currently. Third, by taking due weight and source reliability into account, the references do not overturn the global scientific consensus. This is because they are not even close to the source reliability of the standardised diagnostic criteria, international and national guidelines, and scientific consensus statements, which indicate otherwise.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the lede should continue to reflect the global scientific consensus that recognises ASD as a valid disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying levels of severity, as required by Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. The medical interpretation of the consensus is flawed and lacks careful consideration. Thus, rewriting the lede to exclude the terminology except in medical contexts should not be admissible.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Quick reply to clarify two things. I have not elaborated on the specific issues with the changes proposed by an editor on the third lede paragraph because I don't think this is (at least, as of yet) a main matter in the dispute, so I didn't want to include it and make my statement overly lengthy. I also apologise if I have not comprehensively covered the refs that have been given to support the Neurodiversity Movement's perspective; some have been scattered across talk discussions, and so I cited the ones used in article edits and the main ones I recall cited in discussions. In either case, the points about their general invalidity would still stand. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Here is a first stab at a lead. I have combined bits from various versions, and rewritten some parts. I have leaned towards neutral language rather than bifurcating from the start; I think this allows a much more concise treatment, without eliding the major differences of opinion.

    Note that in many ways this is a compromise lead; there is language that I am not entirely comfortable with, because it still foregrounds a medical perspective, this being the dominant lens still used by wider society as well as most relevant professionals. The direction of travel of both of those has been strongly towards neurodiversity in recent years; it is likely that in another few years, anything based on current discourse and research will need updating to reflect this ongoing progress.

    For now, I have entirely omitted the final paragraph, which in the existing version goes into talking about treatments and cures. Producing a balanced version of this will be a challenge, given the evidence that most autistic people (including those with high support needs) would not want a cure, if such a thing were ever possible, and that the most popular 'treatment', applied behavior analysis is extremely unpopular with autistic people. I am also not sure we need a paragraph on this (this draft lead is about the longest I think a lead should be); we certainly shouldn't be devoting as many words to ABA as the current version does.

    Autism, officially known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a spectrum disorder, autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language.

    Public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. An alternative perspective, arising out of autistic communities, is neurodiversity, which positions autism as a healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder. This is usually associated with some version of the social model of disability, suggesting that disability arises out of a mismatch between a person and their environment. Others argue that autism can be inherently disabling. The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy among those who are autistic and advocates, practitioners, and charities.

    The causes of autism are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that the disorder is highly heritable and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant. Autism frequently co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, and intellectual disability, and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of LGBTQ+ identities and feelings than the general population.

    Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism, and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.. Estimates of autism prevalence have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased. Lundström et al 2015 - fix ref The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by anti-vaccine activists that autism is caused by vaccines. Boys are far more frequently diagnosed than girls, although this gap has been narrowing.

    Note: I have copied the text of the article into a Google Doc that anyone can comment on, in order to start collecting notes about what ought to change, because I find Misplaced Pages's own interfaces extremely clunky for this sort of thing. Hopefully, keeping the rest of the article in mind while we focus on the lead will help us to navigate the potential issues that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY flags up. --Oolong (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    While I, like @Oolong, would like the lead section to be significantly more respectful and neurodiversity-affirming, I also agree that we should be aiming to build bridges, but I still want to make some suggestions to make the proposal by @Oolong clearer and more neutral. Feel free to comment on them.

    First paragraph

    1) Is “officially known as” the best wording? On the one hand, it can encourage readers to just use autism in daily life contexts but on the other hand it can imply a sense of authority that is already conveyed in the second paragraph and doesn’t necessarily need repetition. But it might still be better than just calling it ASD and suggesting it to be a fact of nature.

    2) Remove „(or conditions)“ because it’s confusing (general audience doesn’t know what is meant by it).

    3) Include „differences and difficulties in social interaction“ as not all social features of being autistic are difficulties.

    4) Change „Being a spectrum disorder“ to „Being a spectrum“: the term disorder has already been mentioned in the first paragraph. The next paragraph makes it clear that diagnostic manuals classify autism as a disorder, using the term „disorder“ out of this context makes it appear more objective than it is.

    5) Mention strengths of autistic people, like pattern recognition. 1

    Second paragraph

    1) Change „healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder.“ to „healthy part of the diversity of humankind to be valued and supported, rather than a disorder to be treated.“

    2) Remove the citation of Shield’s paper as it focuses mainly on the criminal justice system and states that its conclusions need not apply to autistic people who don’t commit crimes, which is the overwhelming majority. It is too marginal of an aspect to be included in the lead section. Maybe Russell (2020) 2 could be cited as an analysis of critiques of the neurodiversity movement. The sentence that others view autism as inherently disabling would then have to be changed. It is also misleading because neurodiversity academics don’t state that autism cannot have inherently disabling features alongside neutral features and strengths 3. It is a misconception and when deliberately used, a straw man.

    3) Make it clear that the debate is changing and the support for the neurodiversity movement is growing rapidly. Your proposal makes it appear to be a stalemate conflict which it isn’t. Also highlight the growing importance of self-advocacy and of seeing autistic people as the primary experts on the topic 4. Also cite Bottini et. Al (2024) 5. It is a secondary source with regard to the terminology being used in autism research. The fact that it is a primary source in its judgement of some of the terms as neurodiversity-affirming and others as not neurodiversity-affirming does not change that because critics would (if they are well-informed) not contend that not calling autism a disorder, for example, is neurodiversity-affirming while doing the opposite is not. Moreover, as @Robert McClenon , we should only apply the rigid standards for medically reliable sources for sources that are about biomedical information. So even someone who sees it as a primary source cannot reasonably contend its citation anymore. Additional useful sources to cite are: 6 and 7

    4) Maybe change „The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy ...“ to „There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among ...“

    Third paragraph

    1) Write „autism is highly heritable“ instead of „the disorder is highly heritable“ (see my remark 4) for the first paragraph). This is completely neutral and even those who view autism as a disorder should be able to agree.

    2) Include mental health issues like depression and anxiety as co-occurring conditions 8, ideally with a reference to masking and stigma 9.

    Fourth paragraph

    1) Change „Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis“ to „There is an ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria“ and also cite 10.

    2) Change „myth“ to „entirely disproven conspiracy theory“

    3) Use this citation for the narrowing gender gap between males and females 11 and also mention the biases leading to females being under-diagnosed.

    --LogicalLens (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks, I support most of these suggestions. I suggest we wait a day or so to see if any other parties to this dispute have other feedback, before co-producing a draft lead integrating suggestions.
    A few of your suggestions, like 'entirely disproven conspiracy theory', may be unnecessarily wordy - important to keep in mind the guidelines here, I think, given how many of the problems with the existing entry relate to its ballooning length.
    Just to reinforce the overall thrust of what we're trying to do here: accoding to Misplaced Pages guidelines, a neutral point of view "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity."
    So avoiding language that disparages autistic people should be a priority, as long as it doesn't otherwise violate neutrality (or other guidelines).
    The Manual of Style also explicitly states, in case there was any doubt: "Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate." Oolong (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This paper mentions the tensions between autistic people and the research community, calling for a paradigm shift in biomedical autism research. The authors are important figures in Europe's largest autism research project, AIMS-2-Trials. It could be cited at the end of the second paragraph where it is about the controversy between the models. LogicalLens (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Back-and-forth discussion (Autism)

    Димитрий Улянов Иванов, my understanding is that by "community consensus," Robert McClenon means consensus via an RfC advertised to the community at large; elsewhere, he contrasted that with "local consensus here" (i.e., consensus only among the editors participating in this DRN). Re: "Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN," at least one of them was invited to participate here but declined (as did some editors who don't support the current framing); participation here is entirely voluntary. My understanding is that you can invite wider participation as long as the invitation is consistent with the guidelines in WP:Canvassing; however, since the existence of this DRN has already been advertised on the Autism talk page, I don't know that there are any other venues that would make sense to advertise it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm baffled as to why my comment has that visual appearance. I don't see anything in the source editor that would result in that. Apologies, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have a space before the first curly bracket, that produces the 'box effect'. Feel free to remove this pointer once you have edited your text. Urselius (talk)
    Fixed. Thank you! FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see, thank you for clarifying this! I will see if I can promote the DRN elsewhere on Misplaced Pages as well Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


    Димитрий Улянов Иванов wrote (above):

    ... standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned.

    (a) Correction: The American Psychiatric Association publishes the DSM.

    (b) "... it is not even mentioned." - What is not mentioned?

    (c) "they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD" - I encourage you to consider the history of mental disorders listed in the DSM. For example, until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and therefore a medical disorder, since the DSM is published by an organization of physicians. For many years, including for many years after 1973, children, adolescents, and adults were told that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a psychopathology that requires long-term treatment to (possibly) eliminate the mental illness—such as the medical treatment provided to Alan Turing.

    Simply listing an alleged disorder in the DSM medicalizes it. I hope you understand this important point.

    At the same time, there are some important differences between homosexuality and autism spectrum disorders, so I should make clear that I am not comparing them in most aspects. I actually agree with you that autism spectrum disorders are neurodevelopmental disorders. However, this article is about autism, not just autism spectrum disorders. Also, we are an encyclopedia, not a professional treatment guideline or diagnostic manual, so it is important for us to discuss political, sociological, phenomenological, and many other aspects of autism. The article will still be about, mostly, a neurodevelopmental disorder. But it will also include an enriched understanding, grounded in reliable sources, that reviews the many facets of this condition, including the lived experience of people diagnosed with it. What we're trying to do is get away from narrow, rigid editing that creates articles that sound like a psychiatric treatment textbook. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    a) By that statement, I meant the DSM criteria for ASD does not mention medical treatments.
    b) Sorry, I made a typo there, indeed the American Psychiatric, and not Psychological, Association publishes the DSM. Note that while they are not the direct publishers, the American Psychological Association among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists.
    c) I understand your concern but you are specifically referencing borderline pre-scientific conceptions of disorders that have no bearing on our modern outlook. In the early DSM iterations, homosexuality was indeed implicitly included as a disorder. This was largely because of political reasons and an idiosyncratic interpretation of what qualifies as a disorder. For decades since then, there has been a global scientific consensus (Barkley et al., 2002; Faraone et al., 2021) that for something to qualify as a disorder it must meet two criteria. First, there must be scientifically established evidence of a dysfunction or deviation in a trait universal to humans. One may argue homosexuality meets this first criteria as it deviates from the more typical heterosexuality in the underlying spectrum of sexuality universal to humans.
    However, the second criteria requires this deviation or dysfunction causes significant impairment or distress in major life domains and/or predisposes to increased morbidity and early mortality. Homosexuality does not meet this criteria and is therefore not a disorder; whilst some homosexual people may experience problems due to societal oppression and discrimination, this is not attributable to the condition itself.
    This is ultimately why we can't compare things like homosexuality and transgender (which are not impairing or disabling) to neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD (which are). I'm know you agree with this differentiation and are aware of the criterion for establishing disorders, but it seems I need to describe it so we can avoid these sort of comparisons.
    It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to prescribe medical treatment. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP). No guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD.
    I'm aware and have personally dealt with the fact that DSM committees are far from perfect and make egregious errors at times, including for political reasons, which is why I have not relied on the DSM at all. This was much worse back in its early versions indeed, but has improved substantially since. It was one reputable reference of many I have provided. I'd like to ask you please consider re-reading my statement, the citations, and the contexts of the aforementioned scientific literature which go far beyond medicine.
    The article is about autism which is a neurodevelopmental disorder. If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the autism spectrum is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm puzzled by your comment that "It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it." It seems that your assessment of whether something is medicalized is a function of whether it's treated/treatable with medication. Have I misunderstood how you assess whether something has been medicalized? There are many medical concerns that are addressed through behavioral or other adaptations rather than medication (e.g., through physical therapy, condom use, hand washing, use of mosquito nets, exercise, water treatment). When I look at the terminology used for many of the main headings in the article (e.g., symptoms, diagnosis, etiology, comorbidities, interventions, prevention, prognosis, epidemiology), these strike me as mostly medical terms, and certainly the combination strikes me as a medical perspective (e.g., if you do an internet search for that set of words, the results are medical conditions). Would you mind clarifying how you assess whether something has been medicalized? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't like it when neurotypical people say "every one is on the spectrum" but luckily you only almost said that:
    "From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism." So everyone has everything then? You didn't say that but this idea of people-having-something-but-it-not-being-bad-enough-to-count could be used on any condition or disability, at least in a social way like when talking to people, you could use it to offend and devaluatie someone.
    "starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder."
    But only a little bit so it doesn't count. I understand, but personally I only think the autistic ones are autistic, but that's off topic. Anthony2106 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Anthony, I believe there are two different ways to understand the "ASD" spectrum.
    One works like this: All the neurotypical people get put in this big neurotypical bubble over here: ⭕️. They are not on the spectrum because they are not autistic. All the autistic people are excluded from the neurotypical bubble, and they line up along the autistic spectrum, ranging from Colored. The spectrum runs (more or less, because being autistic is a multidimensional experience, and this is an over-simplifed two-dimensional spectrum) from "barely qualifies as autistic" to "extremely autistic".
    The other works like this: All humans have a place on the spectrum of human variation. Everyone is somewhere in the Colored colors. The extremely neurotypical people are at one end, and the extremely autistic people are at the other end. People who are not at the extremes line up somewhere in the middle. This is "everyone is on the spectrum"; that spectrum runs from "extremely non-autistic" to "extremely autistic".
    I have my own preferences, and I think it's confusing to use the word "spectrum" to describe both the spectrum of autistic people and the spectrum of all humans, but neither of these is bad or wrong. It may help if people are clear about which meaning they're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Way #1 is better, also some people believe you can't be more or less autistic I think I mostly agree with this unless the person is intellectually impaired, or maybe that just means their intellectually impaired. Anyway yt is bad for Misplaced Pages but if there are any other sources that fell this way it should probably be mentioned on the page: "some autism advocates say you can't compare who's more or less autistic". Anthony2106 (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that moving away from the psychoanalytic diagnostic model to a research based model with DSM-III was a major improvement. However, my point is that including a condition in a medical diagnostic manual has the potential for both positive and negative impacts on people in a variety of ways. By itself, this is of course not a reason to exclude or include a condition in a medical diagnostic manual, it's simply one of many considerations.
    Note that I am intentionally calling the DSM a "medical diagnostic manual", because psychiatry is a branch of medicine. With regard to the American Psychological Association, while some psychologists and other non-physician professionals serve on DSM committees, there is no doubt that this is an American psychiatric Association publication and that psychiatrists run the show. A useful way to highlight this distinction is to note that the American psychological association is not listed as an author or copyright holder for the DSM, and does not earn any income from the sale of the DSM and all that related products associated with it. On the other hand, the American Psychiatric Association makes a ton of money with their copyright and trademark of the DSM name and contents. Since we, in the United States, live in a country with a free market economy (capitalism), all I can say is more power to them. But my point here is that while some psychologists are involved, it is the psychiatrists who are in charge and make the final decisions. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I feel puzzled by the statements <quote> If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the autism spectrum is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know </quote> at many levels.
    • Firstly, somebody can show less extent of Autistic traits yet be more stressed/ impaired due to mismatch with environment or bad consequences. A person with more significantly severe symptoms might be less stressed / do better with better support and understanding. School or workplace problems, self ha*rm, agressions meltdowns etc are often caused by stressful situations the person is unable to handle.
    • When an Autistic (or non-Autistic) person cannot cope up and end up with traumatic complication (according to their own nervous system), it is called PTSD/ CPTSD. When a person shows significant level of Autistic traits then the person is called Autistic. When the person cannot function due to these (better to say a more sensitive nervous system that gets messed up in the same stimuli that neurotypicals comfortably digest) and enters into a state of shutdown or paralysis or bad condition, it is called PTSD/ CPTSD co-occuring with Autism.
    • Autism is primarily defined as a social and communication disorder, and it takes at least 2 people to establish communication. Telling only one of them having communication disorder just because this group is less understood and less in number, is ridiculous. The mismatch between interaction is the key factor that make us appear functionally impaired.
    • People do not fluctuate in and out impairment: Autistic people remain same level of Autistic. The stress level, mental stability, cope-up power fluctuates depending upon incidences and environment.
    • No, everyone is DAMN not little bit Autistic. If everyone was somewhere on the Autism spectrum, then understanding and accommodation would NOT be this hard, we would NOT be so much misunderstood and judged. It is true that many people are misdiagnosed with a secondary mental health condition only. Or miss a diagnosis, never come to know they were Autistic, or access a diagnosis late in life... as a surprise discovery or accidental medical finding on some weird or traumatic life phase. STILL, no, NOT everyone in the planet is anywhere on the spectrum.
    • The Autism spectrum is multidimensional, and the severity level is an unhelpful linear oversimplification of Autism spectrum. Because different Autistics have their needs and strengths in very different cognitive and sensori-motor domains. So called mild Autistics can have a different set of more severe problems, so called severe Autistics can have less problem in those domains. Each Auyistics go through different life situations. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The goal should be reducing or minimizing the traumatic state. We can also prevent traumatic situation to some degree if diagnosis, support, and information are more accessible. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    To quote Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test: "Regarding scientific evidence, there is evidence for both neurodiversity and disorder. For example, at the genetic level, about 5 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to rare genetic variants/mutations, many of which cause not just autism but also severe developmental delays (disorder), whilst about 50 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation. At the neural level, some regions of the autistic brain (such as the amygdala, in childhood) are larger, and others (such as the posterior section of the corpus callosum) are smaller. These are evidence of difference but not necessarily disorder. Early brain overgrowth is another sign of difference but not necessarily disorder." See: https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2019_Baron-Cohen_Concept-of-neurodiversity.pdf

    I think that in and of itself, this single quotation destroys the idea that the scientific consensus is only supportive of the 'medical model' of autism. It also effectively discredits its corollary, that scientists reject the 'neurodiverity model' of autism, or consign it to the realms of 'fringe theory'. I suggest that Baron-Cohen's ideas on the equal and complimentary nature of the two models is a useful paradigm for the treatment of autism on Misplaced Pages. Urselius (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I hope that Baron-Cohen isn't actually claiming, as it sounds from this quotation, that anything resulting from SNP mutations is "natural variation", because some SNP mutations result in deadly diseases (e.g., some forms of cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc.). Premature death could be described as "natural" but it's not what most people think of as "natural variation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is exactly what he is claiming. The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial. He is contrasting SNPs with larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications, which are almost always highly deleterious. The major determinant of blue eyes in humans is a SNP in the OCA2 gene, known as rs12913832, I doubt that possessing blue eyes can be called a 'deadly disease'. Even if Baron-Cohen is not a molecular biologist by training, I am. Urselius (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it is easier to interpret Baron-Cohen's sense here if you omit SNPs, which are given as an example: '50 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation'.
    There's no implication that all SNPs 'simply reflect natural variation', on my reading... but either way, it's worth bearing in mind that the term 'natural' is notoriously slippery. Sounds positive; actually includes all sorts of value-neutral or feared phenomena. Oolong (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Baron-Cohen is saying that many of the SNPs involved in autism are part of the natural variation within humanity as a whole. That is, he is pointing to these SNPs as being part of neurodiversity. A simplified corollary would be, again, the major blue eye colour SNP. Blue eye SNPs are found throughout populations of European descent, but an individual only displays blue eyes when they have two copies of the OCA2 gene with the SNP. With autism-associated SNPs, the individual will only display autism when they have above a certain threshold number of the alleles containing the 'autism SNPs'. It is a simple concept. For the majority of the population with lower numbers of autism-associated SNPs, they are not autistic and the individual SNPs may be neutral or even beneficial in their effects. Some autism-associated SNPs are connected to higher than average academic attainment. SNP variants as such can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. I have a number of Neanderthal-derived SNPs, one that affects my muscles - makes me a better sprinter than distance runner, two that make me less fearful of heights and one that means I do not get agitated or moody when hungry. SNPs are variable in their effects they are just changes to one nucleotide, it is where and how that change occurs that determines its phenotypic outcome. The concept of SNPs is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself. Urselius (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yup! Thanks for that authoritative summary. :) Oolong (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Urselius, if Baron-Cohen is actually using the molecular mechanism as a way to define "normal human variation", then that's quite WP:Extraordinary. He'd be defining XYY syndrome – which is mostly harmless – as a "disorder" and most cases of Phenylketonuria – which can be deadly – as normal variation. Let's find better sources for determining what "normal human variation" is. I suspect (but would be happy to be proven wrong) that those better sources are going to rely more on the phenotype, e.g., "It is not 'normal' for children to scream for multiple hours a day." WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    WhatamIdoing, I think the difference between "natural" and "normal" might be meaningful here. Among the meanings of "natural" (the word in the Baron-Cohen quote) is "typical" or "normal," but another is "found in nature." When I read Urselius's comment that "The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial," my sense is that "natural" is being used in the second sense, not the first. My interpretation of Urselius's comment is that most human variation found in nature "consists for SNPs," where that variation might result in disease, or have a neutral effect, or be a beneficial change.
    Elsewhere in the short article, Baron-Cohen explains some of the terms he's using:

    The term “disorder” is used when an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown, whilst the term “disease” is used when a disorder can be ascribed to a specific causal mechanism. The term “disability” is used when an individual is below average on a standardized measure of functioning and when this causes suffering in a particular environment. In contrast, the term “difference” simply refers to variation in a trait, like having blue or brown eyes.

    So I don't think he'd say that XYY syndrome is a disorder, and he might say that phenylketonuria is natural in the sense of "found in nature," but not natural in the sense of "normal." He doesn't define how he's using either "natural" or "normal" and only uses each one time in the article, and even then, he only uses "normal" inside quotation marks:

    Many autistic people—especially those who have intact language and no learning difficulties such that they can self-advocate—have adopted the neurodiversity framework, coining the term “neurotypical” to describe the majority brain and seeing autism as an example of diversity in the set of all possible diverse brains, none of which is “normal” and all of which are simply different.

    FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    If the relevant definition is "found in nature", then "larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications" are equally "natural".
    It sounds like we need a definition of "dysfunction". (We leave aside the fact that asymptomatic dysfunction is also a medical disorder, since his focus is on behavioral health.) Is it a "dysfunction" if you are "below average on a standardized measure of functioning"? In a less politicized area, such as low back pain, we would say that you have a "dysfunction" or a "disorder" if you are significantly worse than average on standardized measures of functioning, such as the ability to lean forward without pain. If an autistic person is significantly below average on a standardized measure of functioning, e.g., social communication, then would that not be "a disorder"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think which definition is relevant depends on the context. Yes, if the intended meaning is "'found in nature', then 'larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications' are equally 'natural'". But Urselius indicated that the human variation that results from larger scale changes to DNA is less common than the variation that results from SNPs, and that SNPs and larger scale changes to DNA have different distributions of deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects. I'm guessing that "dysfunction" is meant as something like "impaired function relative to what's typical for a healthy person." I wouldn't think that simply being below average necessarily means that you're atypical, since "typical for a healthy person" is often a range, and someone can be below average but still in that healthy range. However, significantly below would indicate dysfunction. I don't understand your last question: why would it not be a disorder? Seems to me that it falls in his description of disorder: "an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    To a first approximation, all mutations are lethal. For the uncommon subset of mutations that both produce a practical effect and aren't immediately lethal, then on average, bigger changes are more damaging than smaller changes. However, that's about the average, and as a simple example, a single SNP mutation can change the three-letter code for a Tyr or Cys amino acid into a stop codon, which has the same practical effect as a deletion of the rest of that gene. It would be silly to say that cystic fibrosis caused by a deletion is a "disease" but cystic fibrosis caused by an unfortunately located stop codon "simply reflect individual differences or natural variation" when both cases are producing the same partial and equally ineffective protein. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm assuming that the discussion isn't about mutations that are immediately lethal and is instead about human variation among those who are born. Re: your example, aren't they both examples of "variation found in nature," with both cases resulting in disease? Somehow I'm missing the point of your example. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The point is that declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation' is nonsense. The genetic mechanism is less important than the practical result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    But I don't think anyone is declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation'. As I understand it, both deletions and SNPs are "natural variation" (not in the sense of "normal"), and either can produce disorder, but disorder is a more common result with the former than the latter (excluding all of the mutations that are immediately lethal). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is an awful lot of discussion of what I'm fairly sure is a misunderstanding of what SBC said in the first place. Maybe it could be good to refocus on redrafting, with the odd excursion into things directly relevant to that process? Oolong (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't really contribute to the redrafting, and perhaps I should stop participating entirely. At any rate, I will try to be more mindful about whether or not my comments are productive with respect to the dispute resolution and to avoid those that are peripheral. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is a reliable biological difference between autism with intellectual disability and autism without intellectual disability an established theory or is it just a conjecture posed by some? I wonder why those who advocate for viewing autistic people with intellectual disabilities as disordered don't seem to use this as an argument (apart from Baron-Cohen) and even scientific sources don't often mention it and instead refer to there being multiple subtypes some of which have a somewhat higher likelihood of intellectual disability than others.
    In the talk section, you wrote (Talk:Autism#c-Urselius-20241218203600-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241218172800) about your achievements, marriage, children, house owning and savings in order to counter claims of impairment. Maybe you have read about the social model of disability in the meantime, but showing how much we achieve is not necessary for countering disorder narratives. It can even come close to Aspie supremacism () because it implies that one's brain is superior to that of an autistic person with intellectual disability. There is certainly a hope for a biological difference among autistic people without intellectual disability who want to distance themselves from what they call the "really impaired" ones.
    From my perspective (I'm not a geneticist or neuroscientist) it looks more like there is no clear boundary between the two, but please correct me if I'm wrong. LogicalLens (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily doubt the status of this scientist but it is quite a fallacious argument from authority to use this to help perceive the reputability of a source (as it seems implied to me). People are fallible, scientific consensus is usually much less so.
    I'm glad you point towards how neurodiversity and disorder as concepts are not mutually exclusive. The issue is with the so-called Neurodiversity Movement, specifically the subset of its advocates who argue they are incompatible and thus assert ASD is not a real disorder.
    The validity of ASD as a neurodevelopmental of course doesn't deny the underlying neurological diversity that leads to the disorder. But what's been empirically demonstrated is that once this diversity becomes sufficiently severe, significant impairment in major life domains, distress and/or predisposition to morbidity, injury and early mortality arise.
    I'd like to note the scientific consensus for concluding ASD is a disorder isn't medically based, regardless of whether people wish to impose this term on it in order to contrast it with a "social model". Diagnosticians do not necessarily prescribe medical treatment but merely affirm the presence or absence of a disorder or other form of condition. No medication has been found to reduce the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no reputable guidelines, to my knowledge, have approved use of any medication for ASD. This doesn't take away from the fact that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, as noted by Nelson (2020). In the list of references, the terminology is not invalidated but actually consistently used in subfields of ASD that are unrelated to medicine. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    A consensus is not a consensus if a major player does not subscribe to it. Baron-Cohen, amongst active researchers in the field of autism, is far from being alone in his views. There was a scientific consensus that space was pervaded by aether, which was the 'carrier' for electromagnetic radiation, until the work of Einstein disproved it. Scientists, let alone medics, can adhere to incorrect consensuses. More cogently, science can also admit the possible validity of two or more differing hypotheses or theories at the same time, if the evidence is interpretable in more than one way. Urselius (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    The field of contributors and published literature in ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher or publication to wave the scientific consensus. Keep in mind that the argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature would occur.
    Citing the scientific consensus shouldn't be automatically untrustworthy because it has been wrong in the past. This implication ignores the Darwinian self-corrective process that is the scientific enterprise---proposing, testing, and refining based on the evidence thus far obtained. Even when paradigm shifts occur in science, it is exceedingly rare that the prior model is discarded but rather superseded by a more comprehensive model, e.g., the introduction of General Relativity didn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics (to expand on the example topic you cited).
    An appeal to scientific consensus isn't fallacious in the same way appealing to a singular authority is. For instance, if every single chemist alive unanimously agrees on the existence of the periodic table, then it's very indicative of the fact that that's how molecules work. This would be so even if I am unqualified to understand the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    A consensus is a generally accepted opinion, it comes close to suggesting unanimity. As I have said, Baron-Cohen is not just eminent in the field of autism research he is far from alone! Here are just some scientific/medical publications and their authors that challenge your consensus: Akhtar, N., & Jaswal, V.K. (2013). Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths: An introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1–3. Bagatell, N. (2010). From cure to community: Transforming notions of autism. Ethos, 38, 33–55. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. (Eds.) (2020). Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. London: Routledge. Callanan, M., & Waxman, S. (2013). Commentary on special section: Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths. Developmental Psychology, 49, 80–83. Dawson, M., & Mottron, L. (2011). Do autistics have cognitive strengths? Should ASC be defined as disorders? In S. Bolte & J. Hallmayer (Eds.), Autism spectrum conditions: FAQs on autism, Asperger syndrome, and atypical autism answered by international experts (pp. 32–39). Boston: Hogrefe Publishing. den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider's perspective. Autism, 23, 271–273. Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis, 20, 20–30. Leadbitter, K., Buckle, K.L., Ellis, C., & Dekker, M. (2021). Autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement: Implications for autism early intervention research and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(Article 635690), 1–7. Nicolaidis, C. (2012). What can physicians learn from the neurodiversity movement? American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 14, 503–510. Robertson, S.M. (2010). Neurodiversity, quality of life, and autistic adults: Shifting research and professional focuses onto real-life challenges. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30. Einstein's work did entirely consign the concept of aether to the dustbin. Your extrapolation, away from the point I was making, in no way invalidates that assertion, or the mutability of scientific consensuses. Urselius (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    As with the term 'medical', it's unclear what 'scientific consensus' means to you, which is why I have pressed you on this before. It appears that you do not mean the same thing as what other participants here mean by the phrase.
    I would argue that it is not a 'fallacious argument from authority' to point out that the author of the single most-cited paper on autism (Mota et al 2024) publicly disagrees with the putative 'scientific consensus', and that this indicates that it is in fact something short of a consensus among scientists. There are, however, many other, stronger lines of evidence for this conclusion, as discussed exhaustively elsewhere. Evidently, a large number of relevant scientists actively disagree with the position you are describing. As such, it straightforwardly does not fit what most people mean by the phrase 'scientific consensus' - hence my sense that in order to move forward, we need you to explain exactly what you mean by the term.
    To return to the question of what 'medical' means, when you say 'diagnosis', do you not intend it in the sense of 'medical diagnosis'? If not, please clarify. Oolong (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, and as I take into account my time constraints, I don't think us conversing or debating the specific issue again of whether a large number of scientists disagree would be worthwhile. I believe we've already made our positions clear in the talk page about the juxtaposition of sources, and what Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest, at least as we perceive them, so it would just be a regurgitation of essentially the same points that weren't convincing the first time.
    With that said, I'm not arguing that citing a single source is an argument from authority, but rather the insertion of "a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test" is fallaciously implying we should consider their opinion at a higher regard than sources who don't exhibit this subjective status of respect or have developed the AQ autism test.
    I understand why people like to mention this sort of background context; in fact, I sometimes do similar things in informal settings to show my admiration of a scientist; but it's fallacious given the context. To give an analogy, if Stephen Hawking had told someone or had published a scientific article concluding that the moon was made out of cheese, we would have had little or no reason to accept this as fact on Misplaced Pages. If he published a scientific paper, peer-reviewed it and the referees of the entire scientific community astonishingly did not find anything wrong with it, we arguably would have to.
    Citing a singular source isn't fallacious but, in our context, is insufficient. This is because ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher's stance to wave the existing consensus. I'd like to be clear: this does not suggest a researcher is unable to be right about the consensus being wrong. The argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature and by extent, the consensus, would occur. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, there appears to be a misunderstanding here relating to the meaning of words, particularly consensus. I have pointed this out a number of times, but you are still not addressing it.
    The eminence of SBC in the field of autism is clearly relevant to the weight of his dissent from the supposed scientific consensus (although if it was just him, there might be a conversation to be had). When multiple leading scientists in a field disagree, there is simply not a consensus. Oolong (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    There seems to be a basic difference in understanding here of what 'medical', 'medicalisation' and related terms mean. The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is published by the American Psychiatric Association. It is absolutely, fundamentally, a medical document: a clinical handbook. If you look down the list of contributors, you'll see significantly more 'M.D.' than 'Ph.D.'

    Similarly, ESCAP is the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Psychiatry is a medical field. Psychiatrists are, by definition, doctors. NICE is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. ICD is the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which Misplaced Pages describes as 'a globally used medical classification', and so on.

    I have never encountered the suggestion before that these things could plausibly be considered non-medical; I'm not sure what definition Dmitri has in mind here, but from the context I wonder if he's interpreting it only to refer to medication?

    I believe that nearly everybody here would interpret the term medical to include the above. Some might prefer clinical, but the distinction is largely academic, and 'medical' is the standard term used for the approaches in question. Hopefully with this misunderstanding cleared up, we can move on to a sober evaluation of the views of relevant scientists in general, and others with relevant expertise. --Oolong (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    oh, and just quickly, here's a rundown of the references referred to above, and here is a post with most of my other references (regarding the opinions of relevant scientists and other experts).
    The Tom Shakespeare chapter is in an edited collection published by Routledge, which the original reference made quite clear, and was included merely to provide a clear and authoritative account of the social model of disability.
    The Dwyer et al paper provides a thorough exploration of the relationship between neurodiversity and the social model of disability, and gives considerable insight into the views of relevant stakeholders (autistic people, professionals, family members and so on; the paper breaks this down in detail).
    The description of what the "autism rights movement" says about disability in the current lead is unambiguously wrong. Oolong (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    While they are not the direct publishers, the American Psychological Association among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists.
    For example, the APA wrote during the development of the DSM-5:
    "The American Psychological Association has members with significant expertise in the scientific areas relevant to the DSM, and we have urged them to take part in the DSM revision efforts. We are encouraged that many psychologists are making meaningful contributions to the process as individuals, as members of the DSM-5 Task Force and work groups, and through the divisions of the American Psychological Association."
    The C in NICE does not stand for "clinical"; it is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, where we produce guidelines that concern matters beyond clinically related efforts. NICE guidelines for ASD do focus more on diagnosis, management, accommodations and clinical advice (but not to the exclusion of other contexts), but I am not relying solely on NICE national guidelines but other reputable sources as well that cover other subfields and contexts. These show how the terminology is not valid exclusively in a medical nor a clinical context.
    Beyond this, we should not be relying on the name of a guideline developer or public health body or even their overarching publication to contextualise it. This is very misleading. Yes, the D in ICD stands for diseases but it encapsulates conditions that are not diseases, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, thereby disqualifying the context you are interpreting through the name. Such names are often made as a matter of convenience or sustained due to complicity that would otherwise arise.
    The International Guidelines of ASD from ESCAP cover: "prevalence, socio/environmental considerations, prognosis in autism, assessments in adulthood, provide access to full and effective participation and inclusion in society, common co‑occurring conditions, early markers of autism, individual rights, making the environment more “autism friendly”, transition to adulthood, social skills, naturalistic learning/development, treatments for co-occurring conditions"
    Therefore, it is far from limited to a medical context. This is true for many of the other citations I gave - some of which do not even mention medical topics - and the quotes I used to demonstrate this (see the two lists I linked in my statement).
    While it's sometimes obfuscated with other, more overarching terms like "clinical", according to Oxford Languages, medical means: "relating to the science or practice of medicine." While I am fluent, English isn't my first language, so I apologise if it's in fact synonymous with "clinical" or something alike, but I've always thought of "medical" as referring to "medicine" and not a specific, more overarching context.
    It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to conduct medical or clinical interventions. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Димитрий Улянов Иванов, I'm wondering if you'd find WP's discussion of "medicalization" to be helpful. It still seems that you're interpreting/using it in a sense that's narrower than its actual meaning. "Clinical" (when used in phrases like "clinical diagnosis," "clinical research," and "clinical evidence") means that the work involves direct observation of a patient. So "clinical" overlaps significantly with "medical," as the patient is most often someone interacting with the medical system (e.g., a doctor's patient, a hospital patient). When you talk about the DSM as a diagnostic manual, who do you envision doing the diagnosis of ASD? (Pediatricians? neurologists? psychologists? members of some other group?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, @FactOrOpinion; and thank you, @Димитрий Улянов Иванов, for finally addressing the question of what you think 'medical' means. I hope you are starting to see why I have been pressing you to define terms that are at the centre of disagreements here: I think there is an ambiguity in the English terms medical and medicine that has been tripping you up.
    Yes, 'medical' refers to medicine, but usually in the sense of 'what doctors do', not the 'substance which specifically promotes healing when ingested or consumed in some way' sense. I hope you can see how this makes sense of many of the claims you have been arguing with. There has obviously been some arguing at cross-purposes happening, as I figured there must have been.
    And you are right, of course, that the C in NICE no longer stands for Clinical - I did know that they'd changed their name at some point, but obviously the old acronym was lodged deep in my brain, and I forgot in the moment. Oolong (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Oolong, @FactOrOpinion, @Anthony2106, @Urselius, just writing to let you all know that I appreciate your replies here, sorry for the delays in being able to reply to many of your comments Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, Oolong, for clarifying the meaning and connotations of that term. I do now see how I have been obfuscating the word to refer to medicine itself too much. More broadly, it can refer to the examination to assess a person's mental state/health as well, which would include diagnosis. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    <quote>"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it."</quote> I do not agree that the current Misplaced Pages version reflects that. Discussions to much regarding causes, prognosis, treatments etc. revolve around medicalization and intervention centered weight in the topic.
    The current version of the article revolves around pathology and promotes behavioral suppression.
    It feels like the other viewpoints, other consensus, and especially necessary details on AAC and social support has not received sufficient importance. The actually helpful things are critically missing from the article.
    RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for acknowledging this.
    In your position I would want to apologise to @TempusTacet and @Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, whose points you persistently, angrily dismissed based on this misunderstanding. Your call, though, obviously.
    One small point here, just in case of possible future misunderstandings: it doesn't just refer to the examination; as one Medical News Today article puts it, "Medicine is the field of health and healing. It includes nurses, doctors, and various specialists. It covers diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, medical research, and many other aspects of health."
    Oolong (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    In case anyone is confused: Oolong's comment is a reply to Димитрий, and not to Rit Rajarshi, even though it is located after it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn’t "angrily dismiss" anyone’s points. In fact, the discussion you cite was about the degree to which the global scientific consensus pertains to the various subfields in ASD. I provided ample evidence to show how the terminology is applicable to many subfields and contexts that are not medical, diagnostic or clinical. This is consistent with the broader definition of "medical" that I have acknowledged, as supported by the references and quotes I cited; so, bringing this up is irrelevant.
    More generally, the were a number of misrepresentations and false accusations of strawmen fallacies in that talk page to which I constructively pointed out. At no point did I use insults, ad hominem attacks or other rhetoric to express some sort of "anger". I also don't appreciate you apologising to people on my behalf. Your reply just seems to be attempting to elicit some sort of response from me, so I'll just leave this at the comments I have provided already. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, you are perfectly correct. I now see how the term has at least two meanings, one which refers more specifically to medicine itself or its connotations while it can also refer to examining the health or status of a person and thus encapsulates diagnosis more broadly. So indeed, psychologists diagnosing ASD can be thought of under "medical", at least in contexts where the term is prompted I guess. Thanks! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the ICD and "diseases", I think we can give much better examples of non-disease medical conditions. Consider:
    If you want to consider things that run on a spectrum from normal to abnormal, then consider:
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, that’s quite right :) Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The key word in the above post is, again, medical. Oolong (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think that being hungry is medical? Or being frightened by dangerous things? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    oh, is hunger in the ICD as well?
    you didn't mention that Oolong (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    In ICD-11, the code is MG43.9 if hunger is increased intermittently, and VV00 if you're just adding a note that something else happens when the person is hungry.
    The point is that "in the ICD" and "actually a disease" are separate but overlapping ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Oolong <quote>"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it." </quote> Do you really think the current version reflect that sufficiently? I don't think it reflects that way. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    I believe that a scientific consensus exists, but it is not Dimitry's version of a consensus. The present scientific consensus is that there are two current models of autism recognised by the scientific community, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both have a substantial weight of scientific publications behind them, plus a significant number of papers and books have been published examining their respective merits in side-to-side comparisons. As I have shown, the two models are not entirely incompatible and a number of experts advocate that the application of a selective combination of both models should be used to elucidate both theoretical and practical aspects of autism. On Misplaced Pages both models need to be reported in an equal and dispassionate manner, this is how an encyclopaedia should function. An encyclopaedia needs to reflect the reality of scholarship on any subject. A treatment of a contentious subject that does not do this, should not be a part of any encyclopaedia. Urselius (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Is the neurodiversity model meant to be scientific, strictly speaking? For example, to exclude lived experience as a way of knowing things about the world?
    I'm not sure how we can have a scientific consensus that a non-scientific model is valid. It would make more sense to care about what the relevant non-scientific scholars say about their non-scientific model. Scientists should not be trying to pass judgment on whether historians, philosophers, ethicists, etc. are correct.
    Perhaps you mean something like "biologists acknowledge that the social sciences exist and are relevant to understanding autism"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your premise is fallacious. If a concept is repeatedly examined, researched and discussed in scholarly publications by scientists, then it is scientific. The concept and use of the word 'neurodiversity was first used in an academic setting in a thesis of 1998, by sociologist Judy Singer, it has been in the domain of academic scholarship ever since. I see no functional distinction between scholarly work produced by medics, sociologists and scientists, all are in the public domain and are open to criticism from peers. All are valid sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. Baron-Cohen was trained as a psychologist, but has worked on a subject that has a large genetic element. I was initially trained as a zoologist, but worked on the genetics of infectious human diseases. Nit-picking and asserting baseless inferences on relative merit between what is science, what is medicine, what is psychology, what is sociology in relation to a subject that is relevant to all these disciplines is fundamentally pointless. Urselius (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Academic" does not mean "scientific". Science can happen outside of academia, and academia covers non-scientific subjects. Scientists also get to be interested in non-scientific subjects. International peace isn't a scientific concept just because Einstein wrote about it.
    The concept of neurodiversity can be academic without necessarily being scientific. We might have a scholarly or academic consensus without necessarily having a scientific one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The only prerequisite for the use of references in Misplaced Pages, is that they are reputable. The idea of a Misplaced Pages article on a subject such as autism being entirely or primarily dependent on 'scientific' sources is erroneous. This is my point. Autism has many facets, clinical, psychological, neurological, genetics, lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc. etc. All of these facets are relevant and reputable academic sources from all should be treated equally - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a scientific textbook. I am a professional scientist (now retired) and I find the fetishization of 'science', displayed by some editors here, deeply illogical when applied to a subject that has many non-scientific aspects.. Urselius (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that Scientism is a problem, but I'm not the one asserting that there is a "scientific" consensus about a model based on "lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The reference to fetishization was not aimed at you. However, it has bedevilled moving the article towards a more holistic and inclusive treatment of autism. Urselius (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Neurodiversity is a way of interpreting scientific findings (among other things). It's scientific in exactly the same sense that looking at autism as a disorder is scientific: they're both about how we interpret empirical findings, what kinds of things we look for, what kinds of evidence we consider.
    It's not non-scientific, but it is philosophical, and political - just as the medical model of autism is. It's a paradigm, in the Kunhnian sense.
    Your question provoked me to write this, exploring it in a little more depth (but it's still only about 700 words, roughtly a 3-minute read). Oolong (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Philosophy and politics are non-sciences. If neurodiversity is philosophical and political, then it is also non-scientific.
    I read your blog post. I (think I) understand that you believe your autism is not a disorder. But I want to know if you think that everyone with autism has a non-disorder form of autism. So: Muhammed Almaliti had autism. He died because his house caught on fire, and he couldn't figure out how to escape, even with help. Did he have a form of autism that (unlike yours) actually is a disorder, or do you think his autism was still not a disorder and there was some unknown but non-autism reason why he couldn't walk out of the house when he needed to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why can't it have scientific aspects, philosophical aspects, and political aspects? Seems to me that there can be both political and philosophical aspects to the work of a natural scientist or social scientist. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it could, but Oolong asserts that It's not non-scientific. When we're talking about ordinary medical practice ("what doctors do"), about half of it is Evidence-based medicine – and half of it is not. I have seen doctors be offended at any suggestion that "the art and practice of medicine" is not True™ Science. It is at best an applied science, and the ordinary, everyday experience involves a lot of non-science. There is nothing "scientific" about telling a patient that beer and doughnuts are not a healthful diet, but they like to believe that they are Scientists™. Perhaps it is somewhat similar with the neurodiversity movement: our culture values science, and our views on neurodiversity are good views, so our views need to be called "scientific". It doesn't involve anything like the scientific method – there is no scientific experiment you can run to determine whether all people have equal moral value, or whether people should be treated with respect and accorded autonomy – but these days, we all want all of our treasured beliefs to be considered "scientific". Two millenia ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "philosophical"; two centuries ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "religious". "Scientific" is just a word we use in this century to say that my views are correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll have to think a bit more about how I classify things as "scientific" or not. Research in the natural and social sciences is scientific work. Interpreting such research might or might not be scientific work, depending on whether you're digging into the details (especially with an eye towards how it could influence or give you insight into your own research / how it fits into the body of research in the discipline) or only accepting the surface results. Some physicians carry out medical research, but they're a minority. Ideally, all physicians interpret medical research, but I don't know whether they really dig in unless they're researchers themselves. Scientific research certainly isn't limited to the scientific method. Personally, I don't treat all my treasured beliefs as scientific; some of my most treasured beliefs are values. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Science, especially on humans, inescapably has political and philosophical dimensions. This regularly comes to the fore during a paradigm shift.
    Is philosophy of science non-scientific? We're not talking about a scientific theory (hence the inapplicability of the scientific method) but we're talking about science. Philosophy of science is something that scientists ought to take seriously, especially in more contentious areas of science, to avoid making epistemological errors.
    Here's a fun one: Is the scientific method scientific? There's no scientific experiment you can do to determine if it's the best way of approaching empirical questions, is there?
    It is interesting to note that Jerome Wakefield, who Dmitri likes to cite as the authority who resolved the question of what disorders are and how they relate to diversity, is not really any kind of scientist, certainly not primarily - he's a professor of social work, who works interdisciplinarily and has therapy experience. To quote his faculty page:

    He argues for a middle ground position in which the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design"

    I don't think anyone with more than a very superficial understanding of the processes behind the production of the DSM (or ICD) would deny that they are heavily political. Here's one account by autistic researchers/activists. Here's Wakefield again, on the controversies.
    Here's philosopher Robert Chapman on neurodiversity and science:

    Accompanying this, a scientific paradigm has also been emerging, albeit in a somewhat piecemeal way. More neurodivergent individuals have become involved in research, and more neurotypical researchers have begun to listen to neurodivergent perspectives. This is beginning to change how researchers formulate hypotheses and produce knowledge. Among other things, researchers increasingly recognize neurodivergent strengths alongside limitations, study cognitive problems as relational rather than as arising from individual deficits, and view neurodivergent disablement and distress based on a social model of disability rather than a medical model.

    I've possibly linked all of these before, but here are a series of peer-reviewed articles talking about what neurodiversity means for science: , , , , and .
    In short, there's no 'pure science' when it comes to the study of human difference, and it's not clear what can be achieved by trying to disentangle 'science' from 'non-science' in this context. Oolong (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    So why did you say that "it's not non-science", if you say here that of course it is (or has aspects of) non-science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because the study of humans inescapably has non-scientific elements. I thought I was clear about that. Science can be done using the neurodiversity paradigm. This being the case, claiming that neurodiversity is non-scientific is misleading, at best.
    You don't think that psychiatry is purely scientific, do you? Oolong (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or is your position that psychiatry, having philosophical and political dimensions, is also non-science? Oolong (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply, the references, and the thought experiment, but I'm afraid you are arguing with an egregious misrepresentation of my citations. I have not been relying on the studies by Jerome Wakefield. I did, however, reference this author as a historical account of when the definition may have originated. In my comments, I referred to the first International Consensus Statement on ADHD by scientists (Barkley et al., 2002), and the updated International Consensus Statement (Faraone et al., 2021-2024) endorsing the model. There is also an Updated European Consensus Statement (Kooji et al., 2019).
    Faraone et al. is coauthored by 80 leading researchers, its contents are endorsed by 403 additional experts, along with numerous professional groups and guideline developers, across 27 countries and 6 continents (Supplemental Tables), thereby demonstrating a global scientific consensus.
    As concluded in the consensus statements, this model for determining a neurodevelopmental disorder to be valid is scientifically established. Both reference sources such as guidelines internationally that the model is based upon, which encapsulate autism spectrum disorder.
    As I have written before, I agree that the DSM Committees occasionally enact on policy or other reasons at the expense of scientific evidence and even scientific consensus. My colleagues and I have even personally dealt with such issues, so I am very well aware of this nuance. This is why I have not relied on the DSM but many reputable sources from around the world. In my experience, incidents where the DSM fails to reflect the science are usually evident with the contradictory consensus in the field. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please link your references. Oolong (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I suspect that some people here think of 'neurodiversity' as some sort of fuzzy and trendy sociological term. In reality it is a shorthand term that researchers, including geneticists and other scientists, use for a concept. This concept being, "The phenotypic expression of natural variation in human brain architecture and physiology, largely determined by genetic causality; this genetic causality itself due to natural variation in alleles that are found widely throughout the general population". As such, the concept is scientific, but far too long winded not to require a specific and shorter term for general use. Urselius (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is a bit complicated, because the word has multiple (closely related) meanings. Nick Walker's Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions is a useful source on this...
    "Neurodiversity is the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species" (pretty much what you said) but we also talk about the neurodiversity paradigm (which entails seeing this diversity in broadly positive terms, on similar lines to biodiversity, of which neurodiversity is strictly a subset) and the neurodiversity movement (a human rights movement based around these ideas).
    See Ne'eman & Pellicano's Neurodiversity as Politics for further exploration of the political dimensions of the idea (they note that in practice, these distinctions are not always made clearly or using this exact vocabulary). Dwyer's article in the sameHuman Development special issue on neurodiversity is also worth a look. Oolong (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Urselius, we could give the same definition for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. "Natural variation" is not "good variation".
    The Wakefield definition above ("requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design") resonates more with me, but it would require autism to be defined as something that harms the person, which conflicts with the neurodiversity paradigm of insisting that autism be seen in "broadly positive terms".
    So I ask this specific question again: Muhammed Almaliti's autism prevented him from walking out of a burning building, even with his mother trying to help him walk out of his bedroom, down the stairs, and out the door to safety. They both died as a result of his autism. Does your concept of autism allow his autism to be disorder that actually killed him, or is his autism just a "natural" and "normal" difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The first question is how many autistic people are unable to leave a burning house and the second is how many autistic people's houses burn. Being tall can also kill one if one bumps one's head very badly into something. Being a woman can kill one because of complications at childbirth. Being homosexual can kill one because of the higher risk of HIV transmission. So if dying for such reasons as the above mentioned is only a very rare event than we would not consider the thing a disorder or disease. LogicalLens (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @LogicalLens There is a global scientific consensus that ASD is a valid neurodevelopmental disorder, as indicated by international guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews and standardised diagnostic criteria etc. around the world. (for references, see Talk:Autism#c-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241126131200-Oolong-20241126104700). This is not synonymous with disease. To qualify for a disorder two criteria typically must be scientifically satisfied (International Consensus Statement on ADHD, 2002; International Consensus Statement, 2021-2024). First, there must be evidence establishing neurological variation (e.g., dysfunction, deficit, deviation) in a trait universal to humans. Second, this variation must cause significant impairment in major life activities and/or significantly predispose to increased morbidity and earlier mortality.
    Homosexuality, transgender and left-handedness are examples of neurological variation that do not meet the second criteria and thus are not disorders. Impairment experienced by these, if any, is attributable to societal oppression and discrimination rather than the variation itself. In contrast, ASD does meet the second criteria. It significantly predisposes to injury, morbidity and earlier mortality and so these statistics are relevant as they are not just some extraordinarily rare occurrences.
    Note: Some commenters have opined that the citations supporting the aforementioned scientific consensus are localised to a medical context. I do not agree with this characterisation. Please feel free to judge the pertinence of these citations for yourself. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    You seem not to have understood the full scope of the medical model. The medical model of disability proposes that the disability is rooted in the individual (which is then classified as a disorder or disease) and the desired outcome is to normalise the person to become as similar as possible to people without the „disorder“ regardless of whether medications to reduce features of it are currently available or not. Because of this focus it is often called the „individualistic model“. If a person classified as disabled has difficulties in the current environment and people assess these difficulties to stem from a „disorder“ within the person instead of the environment then it is a viewpoint from the individualistic or medical model even if no medical treatment or medical professional is involved. The social model, in contrast, asserts that the disability stems from an unaccommodating environment. Social-relational models acknowledge that there can be aspects of the disability that are best ascribed to the condition itself, but, as Dwyer points out , „neurodivergence sometimes comes with strengths (Carter et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2019), whereas social-relational models may, by drawing on the vocabulary of the social model and its use of the term “impairment” to refer to the characteristics of the disabled person, risk implying that neurodivergence is synonymous with impairment/reduced function.“. The neurodiversity paradigm proposes that autism is a disability but not a disorder. LogicalLens (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    ASD impairs people’s ability to do things that they enjoy, to take care of themselves and their daily needs, function in their relationships with family and friends, and in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society. Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising and erases the harms and experiences that directly result from people’s various cognitive impairments. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The claim that it does this "in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society" is completely unsupported. Nothing in the DSM criteria is unrelated to society. Oolong (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nope. Major life domains required for diagnosis to establish impairment can include self-sufficiency and self-care, such as through ineffective maintenance of personal hygiene or the distress experienced by restricted, preservative interests and mental preoccupation. These are not necessarily related to society at all, and are valid functional domains for consideration in meeting the diagnostic criteria Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah autism can be troubling by itself but it would be stupid to say the environment has nothing to do with it, I'm leaning towards the disability side and saying; if the world was less loud sensory overload would be gone. That's one example of a problem that the world makes. Maybe both is true but idk why we were talking about this -- I'm so behind. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, that's not true. If the world were silent, then sensory overload would still exist for people whose sensory problems focus on lights, smells, textures, tastes, etc.
    This is part of the philosophical aspect of what we're trying to decide. At its loudest, thunder can match a rock concert. If someone's nervous system can't handle the noise of a windstorm or thunder is the problem in that person's limitations, or in the fact that thunderstorms exist? When an individual and nature don't fit, evolutionary biology would say that it's the individual who has the problem, not nature. Perhaps the neurodiversity paradigm says that the person is fine and it's nature's fault for being so noisy? Or simply ignores how terrifying thunderstorms are for many autistic kids, because that doesn't fit into the model of the kid being fine and other people causing the problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    1) Society can provide accommodations even for natural events like thunderstorms (insulated home, earplugs, earmuffs etc.).
    2) Invoking evolution as an argument for the disorder view represents an Is–ought problem. Just because people with certain characteristics had a lower chance of surviving in the past and the environment didn't provide accommodations (observation), it doesn't mean it is correct do assume that it is the individual who should change (normative judgement). LogicalLens (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Society can provide" a lot of things, but total protection from the noise of a major storm is not one of them. Based on California's recent experience, we can't even provide a decent prediction of where a tornado might form. I heard that the tornado warning was issued for 50 miles away from where it actually appeared. Good luck building a sound-proof bunker when the tornado's already headed your way.
    I mention evolutionary biology because Oolong quotes Wakefield above as saying that this is the perspective used in the definition of disorder: "the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design".
    We have "harm, assessed according to social values": The person is extremely distressed by the sound of a storm, and society's values include minimizing distress.
    We have "dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design": This isn't a trait that has anything survival benefit to the person.
    Given a definition that says harm+dysfunction==disorder, then this is a disorder. You might not like that, and you might prefer that it were instead called something more "positive", but it still is a disorder (according to that definition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lots of people (and other animals) are scared of thunderstorms - and distressed by all sorts of other stimuli. It's not at all clear that this is automatically a problem; you have certainly not demonstrated dysfunction here. There are indeed evolutionary reasons why animals are distressed by some stimuli. For more on the evolutionary front, please see Chapman (2021). Oolong (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I doubt that lots of healthy people are distressed by the noise of thunderstorms. It's not unusual in children, but a significant level of distress is unusual in adults. Perhaps it's just my own circle, but I can't think of a single adult who finds thunder distressing and isn't autistic. (I would also expect this to be experienced by people with some other neurological problems and some people with PTSD, but I don't know anyone with that combination.) How about you? How many neurotypical, non-traumatized adults can you think of who meltdown from sensory overload during a thunderstorm? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Claiming that "Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising" is in fact trivialising. There is nothing trivial at all about environmental mismatches. They are often intensely distressing and disabling.
    Many, many grave harms and bad experiences are clearly avoidable by adjusting the environment in identifiable ways. Nobody's harms or experiences are being erased by saying that they arise from a mismatch between the person and their environment.
    The idea that any of these harms and experiences, the reality of which is not in question, are direct results of somebody's cognitive makeup, and hence impossible to prevent without changing the person, appears to be pure speculation. Perhaps it is true, but I for one have never had experiences that didn't depend on my environment in some way. It's hard to imagine what kind of empirical evidence could plausibly demonstrate that a particular class of experiences has nothing to do with the experiencer's environment, but if you believe you have such evidence, by all means share it here. Oolong (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    First, the fact that an impairment may be implicated in an environment does not translate that the environment is therefore the ultimate cause of the impairment. Theoretically, eliminating all other humans may alleviate the impairments people with social anxiety disorder experience, but this is a completely unreasonable, practically impossible approach that is further complicated by the fact that effective social interaction is a biological adaptation of humans, as well as that they often want to interact with others without feeling anxious. Thus, when the adaptation becomes disrupted enough that it can no longer function effectively, it can be - and is - viewed as an inherent impairment to the disorder.
    Similarly, ASD can impair people's functioning including in occupational functioning, cohabiting with others, in their relationship with family and friends, and other domains important to them, in ways where the responsibility for reducing an impairment cannot be entirely delegated to the surrounding people or environment.
    ASD causes difficulties not just with doing the things people must do (our obligations to society), but the things they want to do (our agency to do the things we find fulfilling in life). As such, the potential for a person to select a less impairing environment is not a valid argument for attributing the impairment away from an individual's symptoms. Major life domains affected by ASD also include activities such as self-sufficiency and self-care, where one cannot neglect them and simultaneously be unimpaired. These are valid functional domains for meeting the diagnostic criteria.
    ASD also impairs functioning in ways unrelated to a society and even an external environment, such as with the distress experienced by unwanted, restricted and preservative interests and mental preoccupation.
    Natural variation in neurological makeup is not necessarily variation with purpose. Natural variation is a fact of existence, but nature does not seek to moralise. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is interesting, because relying overmuch on the idea that "society can provide" whatever it takes to eliminate disability sometimes ignores the agency and desires of the affected person. For example: In the US, two-thirds of autistic teenagers without intellectual disability want to learn how to drive. Only half of them actually earn a drivers' license over five years. (For those outside the US, our driving instruction process is very lenient by international standards. The pass rate for the general population in the US is around 98%; almost anyone who actually wants to get a driver's license can do so easily, and usually in less than one year. If you're 18, the usual rule is: take a quick multiple-choice test, have a friend or family member teach you how to drive, come back as soon as you're ready to show the examiner that you know how to drive. If you're 15.5 years old, the process is a little more involved, but not much. About half of teens pass the practical driving test on their first try.)
    Society can provide alternatives, like bus service and family members who will drive you.
    But what if you actually want to have a driver's license, and you want to be able to drive independently? Society can't provide that if you don't have the necessary skills (e.g., multi-tasking, interpreting others' intentions, knowing where their body/vehicle is located in space, not being distracted by a leaf that lands on the windshield, not being consumed by anxiety when other drivers don't do what you expect...). Society isn't disabling people by refusing to give them a license when they don't have the skills, and society can't provide the necessary skills to everyone (autistic or otherwise) who doesn't have them and wants to be allowed to drive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, you make very good points. I sometimes see this as politically driven that people should partake in societal activities according to their abilities so functional impairment is reduced, irrespective of peoples' personal agency, autonomy, and aspirations. I find it telling how forms of biological variation that are not disorders, such as sexuality, to which ASD is frequently compared to, do not lead to impairment in ways that conflict with the above. The impairment, if any, is attributable to society because it's usually in the form of discrimination and oppression, which by eliminating obviously wouldn't conflict with what the affected person would want, nor could it reach a degree of impracticality or unreasonableness. People with ASD also experience such oppression but this is not the primary or only impairment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The societal stress is not always due to DELIBERATE discrimination but due to cognitive and communication mismatch (Double empathy problem)
    RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "How many people's houses burn" is not relevant. I've seen estimates that suggest perhaps as many as 30% of diagnosed autistic people, and at least 10% of all (diagnosed and undiagnosed) autistic people have impairments that could predictably put them in dangerous situations or prevent them from receiving help in escaping from a dangerous situation.
    Autistic people, on average, have significantly (some estimates say 20 to 40 years) shorter lifespans than neurotypical people, and accidental deaths are one of the biggest causes of the disparity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    1) The shorter lifespan has many other reasons, especially suicide and barriers in healthcare, as well as an increased risk for many co-occurring conditions that reduce health. Please give me citations if you think that the thing you mentioned is a major contributor.
    2) Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations is not a reason to pathologise autism as a whole. First, individuals without these risks should then not be seen as disordered. Second, not the whole presentation of being autistic should then be seen as a disorder but only the aspects that lead to the risk. Remember that autism is most likely a clinical construct that was built for practical reasons without a single underlying cause, so there is no need to encompass the entire autistic spectrum here. LogicalLens (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per your request in 1), here's a handful:
    • "Children with autism 40 times more likely to die from injury, study says"
    • "We also found that deaths in individuals with autism were nearly 3 times as likely as were deaths in the general population to be caused by unintentional injury."
    • "Elevated death rates were observed for several causes, including seizures and accidents"
    • "Associated medical disorders (including epilepsy with cognitive impairment) and accidents accounted for most of the deaths"
    • "The profile of the top causes of death for the ASD cohorts and the general population differed. The leading cause of death for those with ASD only was deaths caused by injury and poisoning...death from accidents was prominent specific causes of death for both those with and without ID."
    • "These findings illustrate that poor social communication may well predispose autistic individuals to accidental death"
    Suicide is an example of subgroup differences: autistic people (especially females) without intellectual disabilities have a higher than average rate of suicide, and autistic people with intellectual disabilities have a lower than average rate of suicide.
    For your 2), I suggest that "Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations" is a good reason to not de-pathologize autism completely. Though looking at the sources above, the bigger risk is probably choking (suffocating on inedible objects) and drowning (even if you really like swimming and really, really, really want to go swimming Right Now, not every bit of beautiful water is safe for swimming). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    While I agree that having a higher risk of dying by accident is a sub-optimal thing, I don't think calling autism a disorder is the right response to this.
    Children in general are far more vulnerable than adults, especially but not only when left alone. Nevertheless, being a child is seen as normal instead of a disorder. Even every person has a certain risk for an accident that is not seen as indicative of a disorder. I don’t think we are obliged to draw quite an arbitrary line there where we think a non-normal condition has increased the risk, especially because the percentage of autistic people dying by accident is still pretty low even if increased in comparison to non-autistic people. People have vulnerabilities and some people have more vulnerabilities than others, especially disabled people. Neurodiversity advocates argue for a non-pathologising disability framework that still allows for some interventions for the individual. Leadbitter et al. mention functional communication (whether it be spoken or some other means of communication), anxiety, inertia and “intolerance of uncertainty” as potential intervention targets . Reducing risks for accidents could also reasonably be seen as a desired outcome without trying to make the person non-autistic, just as reducing accident risks for people in general is seen as desirable.
    The main reason why autism is classified as a disorder and researchers are trying to find a cure is the ascription of “deficits” in social interactions in daily live to the individual instead of viewing these difficulties as stemming from the interaction between the mostly non-autistic environment and the autistic person, the increased risk for accidents is only a marginal reason.
    The problem is that all kinds of things (pain, support needs, vulnerabilities, prejudiced assumptions about normality) are lumped together under the terms disorder/disease. I would like to separate these things. If something causes pain and a cure is considered the right response, then it is a disorder or disease. If it means the person has higher support needs or vulnerabilities than others without necessarily wanting a “cure”, then it is a disability. If it is just a violation of prejudicial assumptions about “normal” functioning, then it is nothing of these and just a feature holders of which are discriminated against. Autism, in my view, combines aspects of the latter two without being a disorder to be “cured”. LogicalLens (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    We might not be "obliged" to notice that a 300% rate of dying from injuries, but I think we should. This is a statistically abnormal deviation in the rate premature death across all ages, not an "arbitrary" line.
    This is "autism + intellectual disability = probably won't see their 40th birthday" level of risk. People with Down syndrome live longer than that (the median is around age 55–60), and DS is notorious for premature death due to heart disease and leukemia. Autistic people without intellectual disability have a median survival that is not much older than DS.
    If something causes premature death, then a cure – or at least an effective treatment – seems like the right response to me. Some of these deaths happen because the now-dead person had those " “deficits” in social interactions", where "social interaction" means "understanding what that person means when they're saying 'Stop that, that's dangerous!' or 'No, we can't go swimming here. It's dangerous! Let's get your swimsuit and go to a real swimming pool.'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, in my view 'disorder' remains an unhelpful framing. What do you think it adds, specifically? Autism is a disability.
    We can't prevent autism, and there are strong arguments to say that we shouldn't try. There are no actual treatments, but we have seen a whole parade of harmful quack treatments, many of which continue to be promoted.
    Meanwhile, there are many, many things we can do to make life better for autistic people, at the societal level - for all autistic people. Oolong (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that framing it as a disorder adds the understanding that autism is sometimes harmful. Autism is harmful when, despite all feasible efforts, the person's needs still cannot be met. We could theoretically ban fireworks to prevent noise from bothering noise-sensitive autistic people. We cannot ban the noise of thunder, tornadoes, or hurricanes.
    You say that "many, many" harms and bad experiences are avoidable. My point is that "many, many" is less than "all", and the ones that you have already admitted are unavoidable is where the "disorder" exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I usually hesitate to mention my personal experiences but I feel compelled to do so here, which I hope sharing may help clarify the why it being a disorder is necessary. It is simply the case that many of us experience serious impairment and distress in some form or other, in aspects of our lives that are dear to us, as a direct result of our ASD symptoms. This has been validated scientifically, and we cannot tolerate a movement or advocacy that tells everyone that the hurt and struggle they're experiencing is really just caused by their modern society being shit and that the issues caused by their neurology would be solved if society were somehow magically better. As someone with mild ASD myself, in my view modern capitalist societies are shit, but also the architecture of our brain doesn't necessarily work the way we want it to.
    Here's one example: I find strong and unpredictable sensory stimuli physically and mentally painful. Coming into contact with a piece of fabric can leave me overwhelmed, and it makes even the simplest of activities such as brushing my teeth far more difficult than it needs to be. There is so much tooling available, and things that can help, but there is nothing that can make up for the overwhelming effort it takes to do certain tasks and sustain that for more than a few minutes. Many of these are activities required for self-sufficiency or tasks I want to do and are directly, innately disrupted by the symptoms of ASD, and it hurts. It hurts that I have so much trouble doing these things. And while I don't have ADHD or CDS, an autistic family member of mine does and can further describe the interplay of comorbidity in exacerbating such symptoms.
    Accommodations help, but its far from perfect. It doesn't address all of our needs. There is nothing society can do to accommodate all of peoples' impairments, distress and predispositions to various adverse risks in life. This is not ultimately society's fault. It’s simply the nature of living with a condition like ASD
    The diagnosis underscores that our neurological variation becomes impairing when sufficiently severe. Declassifying it risks eliminating or restricting access to entitlements we have fought obtaining, under a false and trivialising perception of disability or impairment being rooted entirely in a society, rather than the symptoms themselves. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    You mentioned hygiene above. In developed countries, we tend to think of basic hygiene as a social thing: "You need to take a shower so the other kids at school won't think you stink".
    However, from a biomedical viewpoint, hygiene isn't primarily about the social aspect. It's about preventing skin infections. People need to wash their bodies every now and again so they don't get itchy, oozy, painful rashes. If a neurological condition makes a person ineffective at keeping their body clean (this happens in dementia, too), then this isn't just a social impairment. It's a infectious disease risk. In other words, if autism prevents someone from taking basic care of their body, it's a disorder, not an equally valid and valuable "difference". There is nothing valuable about dermatosis neglecta, nor about preventable fungal or staph infections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's precisely the point I was trying to emphasise there, that impairment can occur irrespective of social factors or not even necessarily be implicated in society, and thus can be attributed to the symptoms directly. Thanks for your comment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing @Димитрий Улянов Иванов @Oolong @FactOrOpinion and all other users: I do not thing social model or neurodiversity deny any of the biological co-occurrences. I think this is a very bad misunderstanding both neurodiversity and social model.
    Some good logic has been given in https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/ (Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about Neurodiversity: Just because you value neurological differences doesn’t mean you’re denying the reality of disabilities).
    The problem is: The way we "frame" something as a "disease" or "disorder" inevitably comes with the consequence of a seek for cure, prevention, or erasure, or intervention.
    Autism is a neurotype. It is also a part of the person's perception and worldview. We cannot ethnic cleanse the cognitive minority. Also we cannot love a version of the person (minus Autism) that does NOT exist. We cannot extinguish the things helpful for a person.
    So called "Low function" Autism exists; but there are people who does not think the existing dominant neurotypical-favored pathology model is the right solution. Here is a statement from somebody:
    "i really wish there was support and validation for us 'low functioning' autistics. not for the parents but for us. im an adult. i cant take care of myself, i cant even work. i dont need articles on 'how to care for your low functioning autistic child thats so clearly a monster and youre the godsend tough #warriormom'. not only is it incredibly dehumanising but extremely unhelpful.
    for once id like to find something along the lines of 'youre not worthless for being a lowfunctioning adult that still lives with their parent and cant brush their teeth or bathe more than twice a month so heres some tips just to make life a bit easier'. i dont need constant reminders that the world doesnt need me" https://www.tumblr.com/asdoutcast/666098069659615232/i-really-wish-there-was-support-and-validation-for? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing @Oolong @Robert McClenon Fishes are not "Normal" human being. Fishes can't (usually) breathe on air. Would you transplant lungs into fishes/ genetically engineer fishes? Or you would put them in water?
    Autism is inherently defined as a "social interaction and communication disorder", (and I think this one matter is pretty consistent between Kanner, Asperger, Sukhareva, Gilberg, DSM/ICD versions, etc.) and "communication" cannot happen through 1 person it takes at least 2 person. If we think of only 1 "normal" communication style or modality, and describe the other as the pathological one (which inevitably imply cure or extinguish) then we only increase pain and suffering, left with zero social support and acceptance. It is not about mild severity or significant severity. It is the matter of involvement of more than one person and their cognitive pattern or communication modality.
    I am not sure if here people are trying to create new definition of Autism solely based on negativity.
    RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    My impression is that the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable. Savant-like focus on details? That's a valuable job skill, so that's autism. Inability to brush teeth or bathe more than twice a month? That's a bad thing, so that's not autism; it must be a completely separate condition that just happens to co-occur in some people who also have autism, but it can't be autism, because if we admit that it were autism, then at least some parts of autism would be something worth preventing, curing, or treating.
    BTW, there are "disorders" that don't need prevention, treatment, or cure. For example, 80% of 80-year-old men technically have prostate cancer. But almost all of them will die from something else before the prostate cancer gets big enough to cause any problems. Framing something as a disorder does not inevitably result in demands for a cure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Urselius @WhatamIdoing Neurodiversity is a political and not a scientific term; in fact, Judy Singer, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement even acknowledges this:https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html?m=1
    Unlike more scientific terminology like neurological variation, "diversity" is associated with positivity and other such connotations as well as with the broader Neurodiversity Movement. That movement is notorious for denying the scientific validity of not just ASD but other disorders such as ADHD and the necessity of treatment (pharmacological or otherwise) in favour of homogenising peoples' neurological variation. The movement also tends to misrepresent their nature by minimising impairments and overstating or incorrectly ascribing positive benefits to the conditions in order to portray them in a positive light. Their positions contradict the global scientific consensus (e.g. Faraone et al., 2021) as well as the views of millions of people with lived experience of such disorders (e.g. Cortese et al., 2024). This has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience no matter how appealing it may be to some laypeople. It’s a pity so many are adversely affected by it.. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    As with anything else, it can only be pseudo-science if they're claiming that it's real-science in the first place. (See Misplaced Pages:Alternative medicine#Is it pseudoscience? if you are interested in this subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The assumption that Judy Singer coined the term neurodiversity is being challenged and Judy Singer didn't initiate the movement . Both the term and the movement arose out of autistic communities and weren't created by any single person. LogicalLens (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    We've been through this already. Besides our previous discussions, I refer you to this piece I wrote on Monday and this very clear statement from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources which is prominently quoted in the essay Misplaced Pages:Scientific consensus:
    "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."
    Which of your citations directly states that all or even most scientists or scholars hold the view you are referring to? Oolong (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Neurodiversity is "Hallmark of Pseudoscience"? I rather smell the pathology paradigm and all its army (usually paid and funded and supported by Autism industrial complex) as a form of colonialism and master-slave relationship within a species.
    You might know about Drapetomania . "Science" told if a slave does not want to remain enslaved then it is a disorder.
    Brownlow, Charlotte. "Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’." Journal of Medical Humanities 31, no. 3 (2010): 243-255. can be an interesting read on this regard.
    Many neurodiversity supporters are also science lovers and also often prefer strict rationality.
    Only Autistics can say what works best for them. Neurotypical professionals and scientists aren't going to perceive the matter... best they can is to conduct surveys, take opinions, having empathy, listening to us, reading our autoethnography. Anything imposed on us outside of that causes harm. I am tired of seeing another group of people deciding what's best for Autistics. Really unhelpful and bad ideas. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Oolong I greatly oppose the idea that neurodiversity is "pseudoscientific". It has a sociological or philosophical dimension as well scientific dimension. But to think it as "pseudoscience" is really sick idea. I rather think the so called "global scientific unanimous consensus" is a pseudoscientific one: because they want to look like science, but all they do is to vote and raise/ lower the various arbitrary bars much like things happen in politics and diplomacy. They don't know everything, yet they pretend they know best for us. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    What's next?

    This discussion has been enlightening for me, in part because it has forced me to think about fundemental questions in my own field (clinical psychology) and to consider strong arguments from thoughtful, smart, experienced Wikipedians on both sides of this debate. I find myself going back and forth and back and forth again as I read through this discussion. Although I believe the article should do more to integrate insights and perspectives from the neurodiversity viewpoint, I start with the belief that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that causes suffering for people born with it (and their families), i.e., it is not merely a "difference" that society needs to accommodate. I remain hopeful that we can craft a consensus statement, in the form of a new lede for the article. Should we start work on that? -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    "suffering" breaks WP:SUFFER. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The reason why I mentioned this is because it can be offensive to autistic people to say we "suffer". Anthony2106 (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for reminding me about that word (suffer) being problematic. It has four or five meanings, which is part of the problem. Would it be better to say that autism causes distress? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this context, it means much the same thing.
    I would suggest that the bigger issue is that it's not autism on its own that causes suffering or distress; it affects people's reactions to the environment they're in.
    I am certainly more distressed in some situations than a non-autistic person is likely to be, but in others I am undoubtedly less distressed. Similarly, I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by, while I am baffled by the enjoyment that many seem to take in other things. Oolong (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by" you mean small things everyone misses? Like when I'm on the train I like to stare out the window, kinda stimmy and fun. Also stimmy should be a disambiguation page.
    @Markworthen I think "distress" would be better, what do you mean by suffer having like 5 meanings? What are these 5 meanings? Where were they defined? Anthony2106 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    See wikt:suffer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would argue, as an autistic person myself, that though autism can be difficult to live with and be problematic, it is very largely contextual. If I am on my own or with my family and/or close friends, in a comfortable or neutral environment, I am not inconvenienced by my autism at all, neither is anyone else. This suggests to me, that it is only in my interactions with society at large that me being autistic can become a problem, either to me or other people (social model of disability). Also my autism has benefits, yes indeed. In my job as a biomedical researcher monotropism was a positive thing to posses, concentrating on my project and not being distracted by other things paid dividends. My abilities to solve problems from unusual angles was also very useful. I produced two theses, MSc and PhD, both passed without revision or correction. My autistic eye for detail also enabled me to become the 'go to person' for proof reading other people's theses, I have lost count of the number I have proofread. The article does not conspicuously engage with any beneficial aspects of autism.
    As an aside, the use of the term 'deficit' in the DSM 5 wording is largely due to US medical insurance requirements, rather than wording for clinical accuracy. Urselius (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right - I don't think anyone with any insight into autistic experiences at all would deny that related issues are "very largely contextual". In fact, it scare me to think that some might - I know there are parents out there with no insight into what causes their kids' meltdowns, trying to train them to behave differently, rather than learning to spot triggers and work out strategies for avoiding overwhelm. I know that something similar can happen with autistic people in institutions, causing whole cycles of meltdowns and ill-treatment, and that is chilling.
    There are good reasons why Luke Beardon's equation 'autism + environment = outcomes' is so influential and widely quoted.
    I discussed many of the ways that autism can be a disability, despite the same traits in many cases being neutral or even advantageous in other contexts, in this 2017 article. Might be helpful background reading for anyone interest in this discussion.
    As for what next, @Markworthen and @Urselius I don't think either of you have responded yet to the sixth statement from the moderator or my rough draft of a potential lead? Oolong (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is there something about Beardon's 'autism + environment = outcomes' that is meant to be unique to autism? The same equation works for any individual with any trait. It's not even specific to humans, or animals: 'Boston fern + environment = outcomes' or 'Flu virus + environment = outcomes'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Only in the sense that for some reason, when it comes to autism, people often totally ignore this obvious point.
    It's a bit like the double empathy problem in this regard. Oolong (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, I had not seen your draft, and I apologize for missing it. I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with. // I need to stop reading this on my phone because there's no way I can track the flow of discussions when they go up and down the page. I keep expecting sequential order going down the page, but that's not how a talk page works. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks Mark! Yes, unfortunately it's extremely hard to follow these discussions on a phone (I've found the app helps a little, but not as much as I'd like). Also, on the phone there's usually no 'reply' button for some reason??
    It might be helpful if you'd chime in in the relevant section, if you're up for it. Oolong (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Urselius, when I read through your comment, I'm left with the feeling that we're saying "When you've met one high-functioning autistic person with a PhD, then you've met every autistic person". For every autistic person like you, there's another one who can't be left unsupervised. Can we write this article in a way that doesn't erase those low-functioning, extremely high-need autistic people. It needs more than just the occasional passing reference to their existence.
    Conversations like this make me wish that they'd split autism back into separate components. It probably was better for autistic people with high academic achievement when they got a completely different label, so the distinction between highly capable and talented people vs those who have no hope of living independently was obvious on paper, not just in reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is a great deal of distress, exhaustion and, indeed, mental ill health in autistics who can, most of the time, fully function in society. Most of the attention, support and accommodation, however, goes to those who cannot function in society. I believe that both sets of people deserve the help that they require to live the best life they can. For some autistic people that help might include sheltered accommodation, with round the clock supervision being available. For me, it might have been to be able to take examinations away from vast halls filled with crowds of other anxious people. Or department stores not making people walk through appallingly smelly perfume departments in order to get anywhere else. Yes autism is a spectrum, people on it have a variety of problems and require a variety of support or accommodation. Urselius (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There were good reasons why psychiatrists gave up on the separate categories. Specifically, all the formulas they'd come up with to delineate these categories fell apart on closer inspection; in short, the differences between different autistic people do not appear to be categorical.
    It is often said, and this is important, that the term 'low functioning' erases a person's autonomy, while 'high functioning' erases their difficulties.
    There certainly are substantial differences between different autistic people (largely, but probably not exclusively, because of other co-occurring disabilities) - but also within the same autistic person at different times, and in different environments.
    You asked if there was something special about autistic people with respect to Luke Beardon's 'golden equation' 'autism + environment = outcomes' and I suggested there wasn't, really; but it is really worth emphasising how huge the differences in a person can be depending on environment. Someone who is eloquent and capable well things are going well may lose the power of speech when things go wrong. All kinds of capabilities can be lost this way. Autistic burnout is a very serious thing, and shorter-term shutdowns can also be very serious.
    Spiky profiles are also an absolutely key concept for understanding the variability of autism. Sometimes people who can't feed themselves are quite capable of getting PhDs, with the right support. Often, people who don't obviously struggle in public barely function at all in private (you might want to read up on the 'coke bottle effect' regarding how this manifests with schoolkids). Many autistic people have much higher support needs than may be immediately obvious; many with obvious difficulties are capable of great things. Oolong (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Chloé Hayden takes the day off after big events so this is a example of how functioning can change. I think the DSM mentions how the functioning of a person can change but I'm not bothered to find it because I gotta continue programing something then sleep. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing
    Why I think splitting the spectrum is NOT a good idea, and what could be done instead.


    Although I think a more individualized classification system under Autism Spectrum might be helpful; I do NOT think categorization based of functionality levels or usefulness or societal contributions are ANY helpful. Technically, people with similar variations in different cognitive domains may have different societal repercussions. Such as I have some weird form of number-blindness (I can't often remember or recognize numbers in a meaningful way; such as dates, times, public transport routes, addresses or street numbers, etc. and particularly banking is a troll for me), and heightened recognition for "names" and "words"; which do have social repercussion, but just think of opposite combinations: a heightened sense for number but inability to remember or use words and names (anomic aphasia, hypothetical scenario). The scenario seen in at least few of the severely Autistic/ low-functioning (so called) individual. Who can tell dates and day names of calendar instantly but can't use words as principal mode of communication. For this minute difference I would probably have much more social repercussion, probably I would be mistreated as intellectually disabled, probably communication modes weren't offered, probably would have been subjected to abusive therapies. Perhaps I would never been learn to frame sentences due to inability to recall words. Perhaps parents were suggested to speak simple words loudly near my ears, which would feel as irritating as train numbers feel to me currently while in platform announcements.



    In reality, no two Autistics are the same. Neither 2 high functional Autistics are the same, nor 2 low functional Autistics are the same. Some have more issues with fine or gross motor control, some have more issues with interoceptions, some have more issues with emotional safety (esp those on PDA profile or ODD characteristics), some have more issues with different use of episodic and semantic memories etc. Such as a relatively "low functioning" Autistic may have a lesser sensory issues. S/he might enjoy loud music and social gathering. Conversely a relatively "high functioning" Autistic may have much more issues in some aspects such as sensory, emotional regulation issues, alexithymia, etc. And intermediate-need Autistics do exist.
    I guess the following diagram provides a rough representation on how these variations might look like.
    a hypothetical radar plot of spikey cognitive profile. Similar details can be found in Doyle, Nancy. "Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults." British medical bulletin 135, no. 1 (2020): 108-125.
    a hypothetical radar plot of spikey cognitive profile. Similar details can be found in Doyle, Nancy. "Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults." British medical bulletin 135, no. 1 (2020): 108-125.
    FIGURE: Here is one hypothetical spikey profile, just think of another kind of hypothetical spikey or uneven profile.
    Based on social outcome, we may mis-categorize some of us having just like some mild OCD like hyperreaction to small changes, or as if some common mental health disorder, and we may miscategorize some of others as "burdensome", "uneducable". But in reality, both kind of Autistics are part of a multidimensional continuum (Not just a linear spectrum of "more Autistic or Less Autistic" but differing in many many aspects).


    Therefore, we cannot force like "high functioning folks can't speak for low functioning folks" or "low functioning folks cannot speak for high functioning folks". In that logic, one high functioning folk should not have speaking for another high funnctioning individual. Or one low functioning shouldnt support another low functioning. But that is NOT the situation. Some of the experiences like SYNAESTHESIA, SENSORY OVERLOAD, STIMMING, ECHOLALIA, MELTDOWN etc apllicable on all the subgroups more or less, depending on individuals. Insights on one group really helps other subgroups. Back and forth.


    Look into underlying mechanism. Look into their introspection. Look into how they make friendships. look into what they want to share. Look into where they struggle. And deep inside there are similarities in mechanism,
    I do think we need to provide individualized support cards to Autistic people, elaborating what kind of support needs they require. How to communicate with them. What kind of accommodations that person might need in workplace. But yes we can get a general and collective idea from multiple Autistics' experience which is indeed helpful. Personally I call the so called high functioning profile as the "interpreters" between Autistic and Non-Autistic universe. Of course there are exceptions but If not an individual level then at a collective level it is helpful to see the whole spectrum unsplitted. Neurotypical assumptions in the other hand, misleads. Even neurotypical people close to Autistic population often have no clue about how to effectively communicate, while some Autistics do communicate effectively among each other.
    @Oolong I would love to hear yor opinion regarding this matter. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Urselius I would love to know your view tooRIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    My views on the matter

    Given the strict assurance from @Robert McClenon: in the talk page conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-Robert_McClenon-20250103163000-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600 , Hereby I express my concerns regarding why sticking to pathology views can be harmful.


    (Moderators Please feel free to cut paste this to appropriate section)

    (1) Are you Autistic?
    ‒ Yes, and also I have received formal diagnosis of “ASD”.

    (2) What are your perception of this ASD? Is this causing impairment to you? Is this a disorder to you?
    ‒ This is rather complicated to answer. I have been seeing the world as too fast, too loud, too rigid, too figurative, too changing, too chaotic, too unempathetic, too complicated. I can do my stuff only if the situation favors it. However, I do think some of the conditions like situational mutism, executive function issues, fine motor and motor planning issues, meltdowns, shutdowns, etc. are causing difficulties and misunderstandings. You can compare it with a person with Dwarfism who see the public transport, school desks and blackboards, etc. are designed for taller people. Who feel like people around them are all taller. The difference is biological, but the impact is mostly social.

    (3) Do you think Autism should be defined solely based on negativity or deficits?
    ‒ No, Autism should be defined and diagnosed based on its signs and internal experiences regardless of the stress level of the person. So that regardless of stress level you can predict and prevent or minimize traumatic experiences. Autistic person remains Autistic regardless of stress level or situations. In some situations we focus or work really well, in some other situation we meltdown or go into non functional, vegetative like state. But it is the same person and same brain. You can’t separate Autism from the Person and her/his core nature.

    (4) What is the impact of ASD diagnosis on you?
    ‒ It gave a rational explanation of my entire life. That was positive and empowering. It was the starting point to learn to stop hating oneself.

    (5) Why do you think that the pathology model causes harm?
    ‒ Before answering that, I want to let you know that I do not invalidate the impairments, stress, and suffering, regardless of need levels. For two reasons I think pathology model causes harm.

    • Firstly, it tries to extinguish the “disorder” and its symptoms itself, the so called “taking out the child or the person from the grasp of Autism”, and it causes a testimonial injustice and a systematic injustice by not considering whether Autistic people are being fruitfully helped by this approach.
    • Secondly, if we do not highlight the social nature of the problem, we would not achieve necessary societal changes and societal accommodations. As we know, Autism is often seen as a terror or an inherently undesirable trait, which leads to loss of human value and credibility. During COVID pandemic period just a few years ago; patients with learning disabilities were issued with DNR (Do not resuscitate) orders (Dougan, Lesley. "2.6 Neurodivergence." The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy (2023): 56.) ; reflecting we are not yet seen as a full human being. The rate of job loss and unemployment, stress related disease, self-ha*rm and low life expectancy is skyrocketed.

    (6) Do you benefit from treatment such as social skills lesson, behavioural therapy, ABC model or antipsychotic medications?
    ‒ I was offered with social skills lessons, ABC model, behavioral therapies, and antipsychotic medications. NO, they worsen my wellbeing. They make me look like more regulated or sociable, but deep inside they worsen. They also take away my sense of boundary and autonomy. I also feel that there is not any real existence of “deficit of social skill” in the sense … because socialization is a 2 way process. I can do little if the so called “friends” abandons me or bullies me and I require to control myself to make room for everyone, yet I am considered to be the one who is “lacking” the social skills. Do not teach us forced eye contact etc. instead teach neurotypicals about existence and value of different kind of minds and brains. Further read: Sasson, Noah J., Daniel J. Faso, Jack Nugent, Sarah Lovell, Daniel P. Kennedy, and Ruth B. Grossman. "Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments." Nature Scientific reports 7, no. 1 (2017): 1-10. (PDF)

    (7) Then what can help you?
    ‒ If I am allowed the way I cope up or learn or focus or play. Even if they look odd/ childish/ intolerable. And also Only reasonable accommodation, such as flexible work hours, written instructions, communicating changes and meetups earlier, making the banking system or form fill-up simpler, etc.

    (8) Will reasonable accommodation remove 100% of your problems?
    ‒ No, but it will minimize the survival mode.

    (9) If direct treatment of Autism spectrum does not help you, then why you need counselling/ psychotherapy?
    ‒ Because of the traumatic and stressful situations that arise from daily living or interaction with typical world.

    (10) Why do you think it is important to make Autism diagnosis and support more accessible?
    ‒ Currently the diagnosis and support for Autism are not accessible at all, because of existing stereotypes such as intellectual disability and inability to speak. Many professionals are also not aware of less typical presentations of Autism. As a result the stressed out person is often offered with mental health diagnosis such as depression, anxiety, bipolar, schizoid or borderline or introverted personality disorders, paranoia, anger, delusional disorder, OCD, etc. which are basically a secondary mental health condition. But cognitive differences esp. related to Autism Spectrum, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Prosopagnosia, Sensory processing disorder, etc. and its societal repercussions remain unaddressed.

    Secondly, Autistics who are able to any one of : speak or write or communicate using AAC tools … can provide significant insight about Autistic lived experience. Lived experience may include Qualia or unfalsifiable components, but lived experience is the ultimate thing that shapes our lives. Thus Autistic lived experiences can function as an “interpreter” between non-Autistic and Autiistic communications. Note that each Autistic is unique, but we get better details on how to help Autistics, and to reduce harms, if we listen to and trust Autistic voices.

    (11) Do you want to include testimony of any other Autistics?
    ‒ Yes, Hari Srinivasan, a mostly nonspeaking Autistic, with a lot of co-occurring impairment and dynamic disabilities, clinically diagnosed as severe or low functioning; who was a faculty at Barkeley and currently at a PhD programme in Vanderbilt University, wrote in an opinion in Times magazine that 

    "I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 3, and for the amount of “evidence-based therapy for autism” that has consumed my entire childhood, I should have been able to navigate it many times over by now. Why was I not benefiting from the vast amount of research that is being done in the name of understanding autism better? After all, autism has been an official diagnosis since 1980". He also expressed that "Of course, as a child you don’t have the power to challenge the “expert,” and you are left with a feeling of cognitive dissonance and mismatch that this is not quite right. ".

    and that 

    "Yet, willy-nilly, existing autism research findings, and the resultant therapies and educational strategies, have been applied across the board to all autistics. Unfortunately, a lack of success in therapies not suited for you in the first place, leads to negative downstream impacts such as being placed in low expectations classrooms, the closure of opportunities, and less than positive lifetime outcomes. I find that despite all the careers, promotions, and profits being made by thousands of autism-experts, the state of autism interventions right now is one hot mess. In reality, there still are no real “experts” in autism because there is no one-size fits all model."

    Note that "wellbeing" in neurotypical standard, and actual wellbeing in Autistic population may look different. But if we keep enforcing the "Global, unanimous scientific consensus" to people who cannot speak, and we systematically exclude people who can speak about the harm, we keep the injustice unnoticed and continued.

    RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Further Reading:

    Regarding dissent on ABA or ABA based methods:

    • Bowman, Rachel A., and Jeffrey P. Baker. "Screams, slaps, and love: the strange birth of applied behavior analysis." Pediatrics 133, no. 3 (2014): 364-366.
    • Pyne, Jake. "“Building a person”: Legal and clinical personhood for autistic and trans children in Ontario." Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 35, no. 2 (2020): 341-365.
    • Sandoval-Norton, Aileen Herlinda, Gary Shkedy, and Dalia Shkedy. "How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse?." Cogent Psychology 6, no. 1 (2019): 1641258.
    • Shkedy, Gary, Dalia Shkedy, and Aileen H. Sandoval-Norton. "Long-term ABA therapy is abusive: A response to Gorycki, Ruppel, and Zane." Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders 5, no. 2 (2021): 126-134.
    • Conine, Daniel E., Sarah C. Campau, and Abigail K. Petronelli. "LGBTQ+ conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis: A call to action." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 55, no. 1 (2022): 6-18.
    • Graber, Abraham, and Jessica Graber. "Applied behavior analysis and the abolitionist neurodiversity critique: An ethical analysis." Behavior Analysis in Practice 16, no. 4 (2023): 921-937.
    ::"This is a topic concerning a community I care a great deal about. My
decision to retract this piece stems from my love for my brother and years of
inner turmoil over wanting to support both autistic individuals and their
parents and caregivers, and growing up in an era and within a community
that framed ABA as a positive tool for the autistic population that they had
been wrongfully denied. That, in recent years, has been followed by the slow
realization and resolution of cognitive dissonance in light of recent studies
and literature reviews on the impact of ABA on people with autism and the
individual testimonials of autistic adults on the trauma ABA caused them—
that real harm is being done to these individuals by ABA. ABA has been in
my family’s life for decades, since my brother was diagnosed in the 1990s, and though I am aware this retraction may not be well-received in our community of origin, I have seen enough for myself to 
be convinced that ABA is
 the autistic community’s analog to the LGBTQ community’s conversion
therapy." - Ariana Cernius

    RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Relevant discussions: 

    "I am consistently seeing the editors using the "Normal" vs "Pathology" dichotomy. Like if something isn't pathological then it is normal, or if something is not normal then it is pathological. They seem to miss the basic nature of the problem. Which occurs in a third dimension." 

     "Up to my common sense, impairment usually mean the biological aspects, and a disability means a barrier in societal aspect (societal participation, having voice, having access to the same things that a non-disabled do). For example: Retinal detachment or glaucoma is more of an impairment, but resulting situation such as inability to access books or a public library, lacking navigation support, etc. constitutes the disability. Sometimes a disability is not necessarily a deficit but a mismatch. Whereas not all deficits lead to a disability, such as draconian politicians (I would not name anybody) often lack affective empathy or conscience, to a various extent, and have excess of other dark triad traits ... but it does not put them in disadvantage, rather it makes them uninhibited to get what they want... by hook or crook. It makes them more advantaged. Distinguishing an impairment or a disability can be an interesting philosophical-ethical challenge, and that debate itself should cover a page."
    My Conclusion
    • Neurotypes and Internal experiences are not negotiable.
    • Concealing the views critical to mainstream pathology paradigm doesn't help Audience. It rather takes away better quality of life, takes away better understanding on the matter.
    • Encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, with all viewpoints.
    • Neurodiversity and social model isn't a fringe position
    • Neurodiversity and social model does not invalidate biological suffering and co-occurring coditions.
    • The article should boost confidence, wellbeing, value, and social safety and social support of Autistic people. And acceptance of Autism to general population. That is only possible through better language and more positive and uplifting representation of Autism.
    • Complete re-write of the article is required.
    • I assume that any Good Faith editor would want the BEST for Autistics, and to do that we need to listen to Autistics.
    • I PLEA the editors to come into a consensus to show the bigger picture including all opposing views and use uplifting perspective and uplifting language.
    • My opinion solely belongs to myself, and can have technical inaccuracies. however I do acknowledge an Autistic collective knowledge and Autistic consensus do exist, which does not often match with professional or biomedical consensus. This shows an existing shortcoming in the professional biomedical views, as it creates an epistemic injustice: So called high functioning folks are subjected to denial of support, job loss, self-ha*rm, stress etc. where as so called low functioning folks remain mistreated using inapplicable or coercive therapy methods with weird goals of extinguishing "behaviors" and not supporting inside out. I support that the concerns raised by @Oolong: is true and highly important.

    RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    @RIT RAJARSHI, thank you for sharing your views. Is there a typo in the sentence that says "doesn't help Audience"? I assume you meant "hep Autistics". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing By Audience I mean Encyclopedia readers. They can be parents, professionals, Autistic readers, Classmates, School teachers, anybody. Don't conceal truth. Reveal contrasting paradigms. Simple. Thank you for asking RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Are we reaching to dispiute resolution?

    It looks like debates and discussions are going for a long period, but any permission to modify the article is not being obtained. Both in Talk page and DRN for Autism, wall of texts is growing up. People are not understanding that harmful things are being promoted in the name of only 1 consensus, and opposing viewes are being concealed. Emotional labour of the volunteers are being disrespected. Wall of text making things unreadable in talk and DRN. What a hopeless situation RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


    Note that I am not advocating for erasure of pathology view. I am just saying that encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. It should present all aspects of a situation. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    I strongly oppose concealing of information from people. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sri Lankan Vellalar

    – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Kautilyapundit on 05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC).
    Closed as wrong venue. I should have noticed before opening this dispute. The filing editor is looking for more editors with knowledge about South Asian groups and communities. This noticeboard is not the place to look for editors with particular experience, but provides volunteer mediation, by volunteer editors who may not have any special knowledge about the subject area, because the parties are expected to explain the facts in dispute. The filing editor might be better advised to look for a WikiProject, such as WikiProject Sri Lanka. Resume discussion at the article talk page, or at a WikiProject. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Closed discussion
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.

    Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

    We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? 

    Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.

    Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

    First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:

    - Terminology differences

    - The inclusion of the mythology section

    Terminology Differences

    The root of the terminology issue stems from my edit, where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were WP:FRINGE.

    To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:

    - Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the Akananuru.

    - Tamil: வெள்ளாளர், romanized: Veḷḷāḷar represents the caste name in contemporary usage. This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste Vellalar often uses this term Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.

    Inclusion of the Mythology Section

    The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.

    The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.

    Third-Party Opinion

    Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS, the concerned user should raise the issue on WP:RSN. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

    I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.

    Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

    I am ready to act as the moderator if the participants want moderated discussion and if this does not involve a question about the reliability of sources. Please read DRN Rule D and the general sanctions concerning South Asian social groups. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, first, whether they agree to DRN Rule D and that discussions of South Asian social groupings are subject to special rules. Each editor is then asked, second, what changes they want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Each editor is asked, third, whether there are issues about the reliability of sources. If I determine that there are issues about the reliability of sources, or if an editor states that there are such issues, I will close this discussion until that question is resolved at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for your time, Robert. I greatly appreciate it. Let me summarize my points simply and clearly. I value your time.

    1. Mythological Origin and Its Sources in the Sri Lankan Vellalar Article

    === Mythological origin === (sri lankan vellalar)
    According to myth, the Vellalar and Pallar are descendants of two farmer brothers. The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter. After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.

    The provided Source 1 (Vincentnathan, p. 385) states:
    "myth for the Pallars of Sri Lanka , another Tamil Harijan caste ranked higher than Paraiyar , in which two farmer brothers became ancestors of the Pallar and Vellalar castes : The elder brother's land , tools , cattle , and crops were ..."

    This line is from David Kenneth's The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia (p. 189).

    "5.9: PALLAR ORIGIN MYTH: Pallan and Vellälan, both farmers, were annan and tampi . Pallan had many children; Vellälan had four children.There was a horrible thunderstorm and a cyclone which destroyedPallan s land, tools, cattle, and crop but left Vellälan s possessionsintact. Pallan had no food and had to ask his younger brother for something to eat."

    The same book discusses the myth of the Vellalar. (p. 185)

    "5.2:VELLALAR ORIGIN MYTH: Although many Vellälar, the dominant landowning caste, were asked to relate their origin myth, I was unable to elicit anything more explicit than the myth recorded by Arunachalam (1964):
    A branch of Vellälas the old ruling caste of Tamil land claimed to have received grain and instruction on its cultivation from the Earth Goddess Parvathi hence Velläjas were called pillais ; kings also drove the plow. Vellälars would elaborate by saying that they were both the creators of life (in that they created food) and the rulers of the land."

    The provided source 2 (The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity, p. 149)

    "From the Vellalar point of view, the stigma of Nalavar and Pallar rank, coupled with the history of these castes as recent immigrants from south India, denies that they have any real claim to membership in the Tamil community. In the early 1970s, some Vellalars expressly denied that Nalavars and Pallars were Tamils; and in tum, members of these two castes in the early 1970's still sometimes referred to Vellalars as "Tamils," thus driving home the social and cultural gulf that divided them from Vellalars. The Nalavars' and Pallars' recent historical origins in Dutch-sponsored immigrations from south India, and their putativelydarl<er skin, also seive to deepen the Vellalar sense that the Minority Tamils are a people apart from the mainstream Tamil community.
    It should be noted that Minority Tamils do not always accept the view that they are non-Tamilians. The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers; after the older brother's death, the widow--a "bad woman," according to the tale-made the younger one into a landless slave."

    Hence it is the tale of pallars.

    2. Contradictions Between the Mythological Origin and the Real Origin of the Sri Lankan Pallars

    === Mythological origin === (Sri Lankan Pallar)
    The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers. The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter. After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.
    === Early period ===
    The Sri Lankan Pallar and the Pallars of Tamil Nadu share a common origin. The Pallars traditionally inhabited the fertile Sangam landscape known as Marutham. They were earlier known as Kadaisiyar, tenant farmers on the land of the Uzhavar or Kalamar. The women of this community were noted in Sangam literature for their expertise in paddy transplantation.
    === Medieval period ===
    The Pallars migrated to Sri Lanka as serfs accompanied by their chiefs, on whose land they toiled. They migrated in large numbers mainly from Chola country in search of fertile land. Pallars settling in the Jaffna Peninsula, which was rich in Palmyra palm, joined others there involved in toddy tapping. Some Pallars were involved in other occupations, such as fishers, servants in forts, and harvesters of Indigo plant roots, contributing to the famous dye industry of Jaffna Kingdom.

    These are copied from the articles. Upon reading and verification, it is evident that the Pallars originated from the Pallar of Tamil Nadu. The same applies to the Vellalar. Both groups migrated to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu and are distinct.

    3. Conclusion

    The user made a preferred edit to suit their narrative. Additionally, they misinterpreted the source, which falls under WP:OR. The myth of the Pallars cannot be attributed to the Vellalars, especially when the same source specifically discusses the Vellalars. The mythological origin section is clearly outdated and invalid, as it contradicts well-documented reality. I refer to WP:RSUW.

    If anyone wants to add the mythological origin to the "Sri Lankan Vellalar" article, it should specifically address the Vellalars. As per WP:RSUW, the section is unnecessary.

    Kautilyapundit (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. Cite error: The named reference World Health Organization was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. "Overview | Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management | Guidance". www.nice.org.uk. 2013-08-28. Retrieved 2024-11-02.
    3. Cite error: The named reference iacc.hhs.gov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    4. National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Dalwai, Samir; Ahmed, Shabina; Udani, Vrajesh; Mundkur, Nandini; Kamath, S. S.; C Nair, M. K. (2017-05-15). "Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder". Indian Pediatrics. 54 (5): 385–393. doi:10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4. ISSN 0974-7559. PMID 28368272.
    5. Howes, Oliver D; Rogdaki, Maria; Findon, James L; Wichers, Robert H; Charman, Tony; King, Bryan H; Loth, Eva; McAlonan, Gráinne M; McCracken, James T; Parr, Jeremy R; Povey, Carol; Santosh, Paramala; Wallace, Simon; Simonoff, Emily; Murphy, Declan G (2018-01-01). "Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology". Journal of Psychopharmacology. 32 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0269881117741766. ISSN 0269-8811. PMC 5805024. PMID 29237331.
    6. Kapp, Steven K., ed. (2020). "Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement". SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0.
    7. Dwyer, Patrick; Gurba, Ava N; Kapp, Steven K; Kilgallon, Elizabeth; Hersh, Lynnette H; Chang, David S; Rivera, Susan M; Gillespie-Lynch, Kristen (2024-09-18). "Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions". Autism: 13623613241273029. doi:10.1177/13623613241273029. ISSN 1362-3613.
    8. Shakespeare, Tom (1997). "The Social Model of Disability". In Davis, Lennard J. (ed.). The disability studies reader (PDF). New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91470-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
    9. Nelson RH (2021). "A Critique of the Neurodiversity View". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 38 (2): 335–347. doi:10.1111/japp.12470.
    10. Shields, Kenneth; Beversdorf, David (1 July 2021). "A Dilemma For Neurodiversity". Neuroethics. 14 (2): 125–141. doi:10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x. ISSN 1874-5504.
    11. Robison JE (2020). "My Time with Autism Speaks". In Kapp SK (ed.). Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline. Singapore: Springer. pp. 221–232. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16. ISBN 978-981-13-8437-0. S2CID 210496353.
    12. Opar, Alisa (24 April 2019). "In search of truce in the autism wars". Spectrum. Simons Foundation. doi:10.53053/VRKL4748. S2CID 249140855. Archived from the original on 8 July 2022. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
    13. Hodges, Holly; Fealko, Casey; Soares, Neelkamal (February 2020). "Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation". Translational Pediatrics. 9 (Suppl 1): S55–S5S65. doi:10.21037/tp.2019.09.09. ISSN 2224-4344. PMC 7082249. PMID 32206584.
    14. Ratajczak, Helen V. (2011-03-01). "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review". Journal of Immunotoxicology. 8 (1): 68–79. doi:10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086. ISSN 1547-691X. PMID 21299355.
    15. Mandy W, Lai MC (March 2016). "Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 57 (3): 271–292. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12501. eISSN 1469-7610. ISSN 0021-9630. OCLC 01307942. PMID 26782158.
    16. Bertelli, Marco O.; Azeem, Muhammad Waqar; Underwood, Lisa; Scattoni, Maria Luisa; Persico, Antonio M.; Ricciardello, Arianna; Sappok, Tanja; Bergmann, Thomas; Keller, Roberto (2022), Bertelli, Marco O.; Deb, Shoumitro (Shoumi); Munir, Kerim; Hassiotis, Angela (eds.), "Autism Spectrum Disorder", Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 391, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16, ISBN 978-3-319-95720-3, retrieved 8 June 2022, Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have transgender identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities.
    17. Lord, Catherine; Charman, Tony; Havdahl, Alexandra; Carbone, Paul; Anagnostou, Evdokia; Boyd, Brian; Carr, Themba; de Vries, Petrus J; Dissanayake, Cheryl; Divan, Gauri; et al. (2022). "The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism" (PDF). The Lancet. 399 (10321): 299–300. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5. hdl:11250/2975811. PMID 34883054. S2CID 244917920 – via Norwegian Institute of Public Health.
    18. Cite error: The named reference Graham Holmes-2022 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    19. Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR (December 2021). "The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 51 (12): 4253–4270. doi:10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1. PMC 8531066. PMID 33624215.
    20. Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J (2011). "The Broad Autism Phenotype". Autism Spectrum Disorders. Oxford University Press. pp. 457–476. doi:10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031. ISBN 978-0-19-996521-2.
    21. Chapman R, Veit W (November 2021). "Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact?". Molecular Psychiatry. 26 (11): 7069. doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6. PMID 34697454. S2CID 239771302.
    22. Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J (June 2007). "The autism epidemic: fact or artifact?". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 46 (6): 721–730. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b. PMID 17513984.
    23. Cite error: The named reference Russell 2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    24. DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT (September 2019). "The MMR Vaccine and Autism". Annual Review of Virology. 6 (1): 585–600. doi:10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515. PMC 6768751. PMID 30986133.
    25. Cite error: The named reference CDC 2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    26. Doyle, Nancy (14 October 2020). "Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults". British Medical Bulletin. 135 (1): 108–125. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldaa021. PMC 7732033. PMID 32996572.
    27. Vincentnathan, Lynn (1987). Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community. University of Wisconsin--Madison. p. 385.
    28. Manogaran, Chelvadurai; Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity. Westview Press. pp. 35, 43, 147, 149. ISBN 9780813388458.
    29. David, Kenneth (1977-01-01). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 189, 190, 204. ISBN 9783110807752.
    30. Contributions to Indian Sociology. University of Oxford: Mouton. 1993. p. 69.
    31. David, K. (2011). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. World Anthropology. De Gruyter. p. 189. ISBN 978-3-11-080775-2. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
    32. Vincentnathan, Lynn (1987). Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community. University of Wisconsin--Madison. p. 385.
    33. Manogaran, Chelvadurai; Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity. Westview Press. pp. 35, 43, 147, 149. ISBN 9780813388458.
    34. David, Kenneth (1977-01-01). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 189, 190, 204. ISBN 9783110807752.
    35. Contributions to Indian Sociology. University of Oxford: Mouton. 1993. p. 69.
    36. University, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru (2017-08-25). Historical Dictionary of the Tamils. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 371. ISBN 978-1-5381-0686-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    37. History of People and Their Environs: Essays in Honour of Prof. B.S. Chandrababu. Indian Universities Press: Bharathi Puthakalayam. 2011. p. 320. ISBN 978-93-80325-91-0.
    38. Arasaratnam, Sinnappah (1996-01-01). Ceylon and the Dutch, 1600-1800: External Influences and Internal Change in Early Modern Sri Lanka. n Variorum. p. 381. ISBN 978-0-86078-579-8.
    39. Raghavan, M. D. (1971). Tamil culture in Ceylon: a general introduction. Kalai Nilayam. pp. 104, 184, 193.

    Zeroth statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

    First statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

    I asked whether each editor had any questions about the reliability of sources. That question does not appear to have been answered. If there are any questions about sources, please state them for me so that I can ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the sources.

    I asked each editor to state concisely what they wanted to change, or to leave the same. The answers are long, and it is not obvious to me what each editor wants. It appears that the main dispute has to do with the mythological origin section. So I will ask each editor whether they want to: delete the mythological origin section; leave the section unchanged; expand it; or modify it but rework or revise it.

    There was a Third Opinion by User:AirshipJungleman29. Normally a Third Opinion should resolve a content dispute. So I will ask each editor whether they agree with the Third Opinion, and, if not, how and why do they disagree with the Third Opinion.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    The source's reliability isn't in question, but the cherry-picked content focusing on Pallars is problematic.
    The third opinion didn’t resolve the dispute. The myth section should be removed as it contradicts credible sources and reality. If mythology is included, it should focus on Vellalars, not misattribute myths of Pallars.

    Edits were made to suit a narrative, misinterpreting the source. The outdated mythological origin section conflicts with documented facts and is unnecessary per WP:RSUW. Kautilyapundit (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    First statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Imran Khan

    – New discussion. Filed by SheriffIsInTown on 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The content removed in this diff had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, Reham Khan is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled Reham Khan (memoir), published by HarperCollins. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, Misplaced Pages is not censored.

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

    Talk:Imran Khan#Reham Khan

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources.

    Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially Misplaced Pages:BLP, which states "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

    While the book was published by a reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, she lost the case and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, suggesting a potential motive for bias.

    The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.

    Summary of dispute by Veldsenk

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Imran Khan discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)

    I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on editing of biographies of living persons. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community.

    I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

    Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

    I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.

    I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute:

    Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in her book that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018. Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth." Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.

    I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Misplaced Pages policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:GRAPEVINE, which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, she had to publicly apologize. Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias. These claims have not been independently verified, failing Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As User:Veldsenk pointed out, without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @WikiEnthusiast1001 Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


    References

    1. "Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan". dnaindia.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 10 August 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
    2. "Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book". Deccanchronicle.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 14 July 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
    3. "Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan". hindustantimes.com. 13 July 2018. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
    4. Tagore, Vijay (15 July 2018). "Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan". Mumbai Mirror. Archived from the original on 11 August 2018. Retrieved 11 August 2018.
    5. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2021. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.
    6. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.

    Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)

    – This request has been placed on hold. Filed by Abo Yemen on 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

    Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV

    Summary of dispute by Javext

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".

    Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:

    -"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"

    -"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"

    -"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."

    I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:

    -"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."

    -"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."

    So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)

    It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

    Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.

    Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.


    First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.

    The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory


    Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
    For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.
    Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.

    I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy


    Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.

    The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.


    Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...

    It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.


    I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    "The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."
    .
    Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.
    -
    "First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."
    .
    You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.
    -
    "Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."
    .
    What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..
    -
    "Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
    'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'
    Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."
    .
    I already responded to this above
    -
    "Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."
    .
    Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "
    -
    "Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."
    .
    I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."
    -
    "Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."
    .
    I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet wikipedia standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

    Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

    I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.

    I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

    I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
    (Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Abo Yemen: Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alright,
    Changes that I want to be made:
    • I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
    • The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text
    • As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).
    Abo Yemen✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Abo Yemen and Javext: Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.
    If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?
    Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8Ahttps://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at WP:RSN Javext (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    References

    1. : However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).

    First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

    It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Abo Yemen and Javext: Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit Abo Yemen✉ 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Abo Yemen: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

    Habte Giyorgis Dinagde

    – New discussion. Filed by Jpduke on 03:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There is a dispute regarding two claims which were introduced in an edit. There was no talk page discussion before the edits were made and so far it has resulted in changing each other edits. The two claims that I believe are false are,

    1. Claim that Habte Giyorgis fought for Hassan Enjamo: The user claims that Habte Giyorgis was captured while fighting under the Hadiya army led by Hassan Enjamo during the "holy war." This assertion has been challenged on the grounds that there is no verifiable source that directly supports this claim. The source that was cited suggest that Habte was captured earlier, during Ras Gobana's Gurage campaigns in the late 1870s, before Enjamo's rise to prominence and in no way directly say Habte fought for Enjamo.

    2. Claim that Habte Giyorgis was from Hadiya or born in Hadiya: The editor introduced changes suggesting that Habte was born in Hadiya or had Hadiya origins. However, existing references explicitly identify Habte as being from Gurage or Waliso, on the border of Oromo and Gurage regions, with no direct connection to Hadiya. The sources used by "Magherbin" to support this claim are not explicit or verifiable as well, he uses two sources 1."Professor Lapiso" as an in-text source which is not cited in references and 2. Delibo which does not provide a clear verifiable connection to the claims.

    Verifiability: The claims lack direct citation from reliable sources and rely on inference rather than explicit documentation. I have read all of the sources and all don't support the claims.

    Original Research: The disputed claims draw unsupported conclusions or extrapolate from unrelated historical facts

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Extensive Discussion in Talk page:

    Posted Multiple Third Opinion requests spanning 4 weeks. I don't know how to link that.

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    I would like for a second opinion as discussions have broken down from the user. Facilitate a discussion to find consensus with the Magherbin. Evaluate whether the claims about Habte Giyorgis fighting for Enjamo and being from Hadiya meet Misplaced Pages's standards of verifiability and sourcing. I believe my reasoning was clear in the talk pages though I feel ignored and wanted to escalate the dispute.

    Summary of dispute by Magherbin

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Habte Giyorgis Dinagde discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

    List of WBC world champions

    – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Blizzythesnowman on 20:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC).
    Closed as problematic. The least serious problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. That could be corrected if it was reasonable to expect that the other editor will have the same user talk page, which is not reasonable. The other editor's IPv6 address is constantly shifting, as is usually the case with IPv6 addresses/ It doesn't see to be feasible to conduct dispute resolution with an editor whose IP address is constantly changing. The other editor is strongly advised to register an account if they expect to be involved in dispute resolution. Otherwise they may be semi-protected out of disputed pages. Also, this dispute seems like a minor matter that could easily be handled by a Third Opinion. Resume discussion at the article talk page, or request a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Closed discussion
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    A user wishes to add a new highlight that signifies the boxer with the most title defenses across all weight classes. Since it only highlights one boxer, I believe that the highlight isn't needed and it can be stated in the lead paragraph.

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

    This was discussed in the talk page: #Most overall consecutive title defenses should be included.

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    To give verdict on what edit to follow and or a compromise.

    Summary of dispute by 2601:3C5:8180:31D0:9CC3:C472:A191:D79F

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    List of WBC world champions discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Movement for Democracy (Greece)

    – New discussion. Filed by 77.49.204.122 on 18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.

    Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.

    However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.

    The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.

    While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well.

    Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.

    Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Categories: