| Revision as of 00:24, 7 October 2012 editShowmebeef (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,098 edits →Comments by (previously uninvolved) HiLo48← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:20, 7 January 2025 edit undoOolong (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,621 edits →Fourth paragraph: Some relevant guidelinesTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Informal venue for resolving content disputes}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{ |
|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 252 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{clear|left}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{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}} | |||
| == 24 Game == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{DR case status|failed}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 327 --> | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Uucp|00:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=Filing editor refused to engage after case opening. ] (]) 10:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| =Current disputes= | |||
| == Autism == | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} | |||
| <!-- ] 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)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 30: | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | ||
| * {{pagelinks| |
* {{pagelinks|Autism}} | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|Oolong}} | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{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> | <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. | |||
| The page is about a card game, and included links to a blog post asserting the number of possible playable hands and other facts. Editor ] added links to a second blog asserting corrections to the first one and offering computer code showing all solvable hands, among other things. Editor ] reverted this, saying that the new blog post was too recent and must therefore be viewed as "spam". This began a revert war with editor Uucp, who disagreed. | |||
| 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Comments in the edit changes and on the talk page. Both sides seem set in their views, though the discussion has remained civil on both parts. | |||
| 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| 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"? | |||
| 24guard has changed his grounds for reversion over time, variously claiming that recent blog posts are not allowed, that the content could not be linked to as he could not prove it accurate, or that the blog post constituted original research and should therefore not be allowed. In his most recent change, he removed both blog posts; I'm not sure why. I think a cool head can help resolve this. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| ==== Opening comments by 24guard ==== | |||
| <div> | |||
| On September 26th, 2012, a blog post appeared on wheels.org (which has an Alexa global ranking of 7,202,473), titled "A perfect solution to 24 game". <br> | |||
| 0 days later, Uucp edited a paragraph of the 24_game page, removed some perfectly fine text in the Strategy section. And added a new section "Solutions" which heavily quoted some original research from "A perfect solution to 24 game" on wheels.org. The research quoted on the wheels.org blog post is a pdf file (unpublished) of more than 200 page long.<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| On September 28th, 2012, I reverted Uucp's edit per wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies. <br> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ]] | |||
| Related: ] | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| On September 28th, 2012, Uucp reverted my reversion and claimed his source is "superior" to the sources (2 other blog posts) before his edit. I checked the sources, and decided to remove all these blog posts per wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies.<br> | |||
| 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. | |||
| As of October 2nd, 2012, Qwyrxian and Paddy3118 further cleaned up the 24_game page and I have no problem with the current version. | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов ==== | |||
| ] (]) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC).</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. | |||
| 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). | |||
| === 24 Game discussion === | |||
| This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see ]. | |||
| OK. The site is not a reliable source. It appears to be self published with no editorial oversite and no fact checking, and that isn't even the blog.--] (]) 11:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : is also not RS. Vanity site. No editorial oversite or factchecking. That means the blog is just not acceptable but will be clear about blogs as references. ]: ''"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."'' also ''""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."'' You may see more on blogs at ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :On the talkpage ] has stated that he believes the dispute is resolved as the current version appears to be holding and I tend to agree and feel that this case is resolved.--] (]) 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::] has engaged discussion again at the talkpage were he has stated that this is not resolved and has expressed a desire to resuurect this DR/N. I have informed the user at the talkpage that the DR/N is still active and awaits his comments.--] (]) 00:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I, like Amadscientist, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Misplaced Pages policy clearly ] that blogs are not acceptable ] except for (a) certain newspaper and magazine blogs which are acceptable because they come under, and are subject to, those publications general editorial and fact-checking policies and (b) "elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per ]. Indeed, blogs are so generally unacceptable as sources that one of the nicknames for the ] is ]. If an editor wishes to use material from a blog, therefore, it is incumbent upon that editor to establish which of the two exceptions to the self-published sources policy applies to that material. '''@Uucp:''' Which of those exceptions applies in this case, and how does it apply? If neither applies, how do you contend that these blogs are acceptable sources under Misplaced Pages ''policy''? Regards, ] (]) 14:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Gangnam Style == | |||
| While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations. | |||
| {{DR case status|stale}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 331 --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Curb Chain|23:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan ==== | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| <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. | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Gangnam Style}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * {{User|Curb Chain}} | |||
| * {{User| Castncoot}} | |||
| * {{User|A1candidate}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| :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) | |||
| In this section of the ] of ], I believe the quote should be . | |||
| ::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 ==== | |||
| Other editors (] and ]) believe the quote should be | |||
| <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 ==== | |||
| My arguments are policy based. Theirs are not. | |||
| <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 ==== | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| <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) | |||
| I have used edit summaries when I removed the quote (which has been done in several versions). | |||
| :@], 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| :(I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) ] (]) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion ==== | |||
| I need more editors to provide a consensus. Otherwise, I will file a RfC. | |||
| <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. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Castncoot ==== | |||
| :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) | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| Please see the talk page of the article in question. User ] at this time appears to be the lone holdout carrying his or her viewpoint, while four others (including myself) have arrived at the conclusion that the quote should be restored. It is informative, constructive, and well-cited exactly as a ''quote'' which was indeed stated, if one views the citation properly; no more and no less. I believe that Curb Chain is misinterpreting a policy; otherwise, four others would not hold an opinion in opposition of him or her. ] (]) 01:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies, correction - two other editors, not four. I should mention, however, that this quote has held up for a matter of either many days or weeks now before this dispute - obviously many other editors were in agreement with it. ] (]) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== |
==== Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 ==== | ||
| <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> | |||
| Giving undue weight to an opinion only applies if that opinion is held by a small minority. In this case, ] isn't by far the only one who reports about "Gangnam Style" taking over/conquering/spreading over the entire world (I can quote from Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, any respectable newspaper you can think of) | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo ==== | |||
| === Gangnam Style discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please |
<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 === | |||
| I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me begin by noting that one of the more interesting things about this dispute is that no one has noted that the quote is misstated. The quote comes from a point at 3:13 in the video and the reporter clearly says "intrawebs" (''sic'', both as to the term and its plural use), not "Internet". I disagree entirely with Curb Chain's analysis of the matter, which he asserts to be policy-based, which is set out in . <small>] has no part in deciding whether or not sources are ]; while ] ''could'' have some application here, I do not believe that it does; and, similarly, the fact that the quote is taken from a larger context could also have some application if the way in which it was extracted causes it to be misleading as to the entire content, it does not do that.</small> Since the quote is set off in a box by itself, it serves the same function in the article as does an image, to illustrate the article. Since the section of the article to which this is attached is about the widespread popularity of the song and video and, in particular, the Internet meme and the flash mobs which have been inspired by it, I'm of the personal opinion that the quote would have been an acceptable illustration for the article as it is presently, incorrectly, stated with the word "Internet" included, instead of the correct word, "intrawebs". ''However,'' if it is corrected to say "intrawebs", rather than "Internet", ''as it must be,'' then I think that its use is potentially confusing and that, at best, the use of "intrawebs" is distracting and my personal opinion is that it ought to be removed from the article for those reasons. Regards, ] (]) 15:08, 1 October 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> | |||
| To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" (in this particular context) appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs". All in all, it isn't a perfect quote, but adding it to the article would do more good than harm, in my opinion -] (]) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)=== | |||
| :Agree with A1. The quote seems to be doing just fine and is a valuable addition in its corrected form - I don't believe there's anything to be gained from removing it. This discussion really should be closed, I feel. ] (]) 17:13, 2 October 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; | |||
| *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). | |||
| Is the matter that serious? It's just a nice quotation, it looks good there in the box. Could ] explain what exactly he or she doesn't like in the quotation? That "Gangnam Style" took over the world? (just guessing) By the way, I think that the article needs some criticism. It's strange that everyone likes the song. Why hasn't any publication received the song without enthusiasm? It's completely unrelated to the dispute, though. --] (]) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :While I don't think that the quote had more than marginal utility, which was further diminished by the correction, I also think that this is one of those things where it's a close judgment call as to what's best for the encyclopedia. My objection to the quote is only slightly on the negative side of the issue and I certainly do not mean to pursue the point further. If Curb Chain wishes to do so, that's his call, but he probably needs to do so through an ] since the weight of opinion here and at the article seems to be mostly the other way. Regards, ] (]) 21:03, 3 October 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...)? | |||
| :This dispute has been inactive for some time. Is our assistance still required? <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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)=== | |||
| == English Vinglish == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 333 --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Vivekdalmias|07:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 07:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| 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) | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| :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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| :@] has ] - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there? | |||
| * {{pagelinks|English Vinglish}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| ::::@]@] I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample): | |||
| * {{User|Vivekdalmias}} | |||
| :::::: " 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. " | |||
| * {{User| Vivvt}} | |||
| ::] (]) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| ===First statements by editors (Autism)=== | |||
| the dispute is for the promotion part, the self published legal owner websites, blogs, facebook and twitter which are normally only source to identify the issue is questioned against the newspaper or electronic media post who does not post, print news without the help of legal owner post in self published pages. | |||
| ==== 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| Let's take the opening paragraph. | |||
| i have tried to convince the user to understand that the post published in media is just after the post published by the legal owner on there self published pages, facebook profile and twitter accounts. so the self published source in this particular post is most reliable to refer for the actual date | |||
| {{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%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted. | |||
| to let the user convince that the wikipedia verifiability policies does not blame in clear that self published post and youtube facebook or twitter account can be questioned for the reliability and authenticity specially when the post is about something whose details can be most reliably obtained by there self published post | |||
| Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted: | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Vivvt ==== | |||
| Dispute?? That's interesting. I've been asking editor to use free references like newspapers than social media, then it becomes dispute!! Editor is consistently providing all the non-RS sources like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Is date of promotion disputable? Not for me. As long as you provide free references, any date should be OK. 14th or 15th June does not matter to me. What matters to me is the sources editor is providing. Use the newspaper sources and go ahead with the desired date. FB, Twitter, Youtube and social media is not considered as reliable source. | |||
| {{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. }} | |||
| Again, I do not own any page for that matter, so any discussion need not "convince" me for anything. - ] • <span style="font-size:85%;">(])</span> 12:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| === English Vinglish discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I suggest reading ]. I think the two parties will be able to discuss a resolution here. We will not try to convince anyone at DRN. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for ] | |||
| hi. i have read the ] also ] and there its also said that when the context is related to the person or body or company for whom the article is all about then the self published sources along with the social media content can be used as source instead if they are published by the authentic publisher | |||
| <small>Above entered by {{noping|Oolong}}</small> | |||
| also on newspaper source is concerened news agencies are always dependable on the same self published sources. here the date is not an issue rather its an issue of fact that why in the basis of context of article we can not use the social media if that source is most reliable for that particular context. its in same way ask the person directly for whom the article is all about. | |||
| ====Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. ==== | |||
| aditionaly i provided the additional non facebook twitter and youtube sources to other user for the same date issue.its not to convince him over page on date, it is the matter to use some ] based on context and the dispute is about using ] and ]] (]) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ''Classification'' goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both | |||
| :'''Suggestion:''' Has nobody considered poking ] to see what they think about the article and the sources used to back up the claims? ] (]) 16:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ''diagnosis'' and ''signs and symptoms''. | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Michael Welner == | |||
| ''Possible causes'' should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise ''epidemiology''. | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 337 --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Stewaj7|21:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''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. | |||
| <!-- ] 21:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| ''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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| ''History'' and especially ''society and culture'' probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article. | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Michael Welner}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * {{User|Stewaj7}} | |||
| * {{User| Jcally66}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough? | |||
| My apologies as I was not logged in when I filed my earlier dispute - though I thought I was. Regarding Michael Welner page, this page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statement about peer review being controversial, without appropriate referencing was included. Jcally66 statments are unsupported by the source that she lists. When this was brought to Jcally66 attention, the editor noted their personal knowledge of events as a source and the court opinion which only vested parties have access to - non verifiable. In the middle of discussions about edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934 - disregarding discussions. | |||
| --] (]) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| Discussion talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette. | |||
| ===Second statement by moderator (Autism)=== | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| 1. <s>protect the page until discussions have been concluded.</s> (See closing statement above. '''Comment about user removed''' ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| 2. another editors objective input would be helpful. My fear is the this will turn into another editing war if the page is left open to edits. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Jcally66 ==== | |||
| I made a 3 sentence addition to the BLP for Dr. Welner in the section "The Forensic Panel" where it states: "Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation." The wiki BLP and subject's use of the term "peer review" flatly contradicts all accepted definitions of the term by scientific and medical professionals. I cited a recent, publicly-available, federal court ruling that threw out a "Panel" report that hinged on their conflation of terms 'peer review" with "co-authorship" or "consulting". I have only used Wiki references to define "peer review" and only used publicly-available sources to make statements of fact. I considered this necessary to add since the ruling was for a capital criminal sentencing and because this issue has been on-going focus of controversy since 2006 (the Andrea Yates trial, which I also referenced.) All accusations of vested interest or bad faith are unfounded. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| === Michael Welner discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I will help with this dispute. I will remove all comments about conduct and users. We can start when the other party responds. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Are there any other questions? | |||
| Stewaj7 here. I have asked Jcally66 to chime in on their talk page, but have not heard back. We have been engaged in more discussion on the talk page. They were kind enough to remove their edits while discussions were ongoing.] (]) 23:24, 2 October 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) | |||
| Jcally66 here. I'm not sure how this works - first edited 3 days ago. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :Jcally66, please use the section title "Opening Comments by Jcally66" to state your reasoning on why you feel justified for your contributions, why you may feel the other editor is incorrect or any other comments in regards to this case you feel need to be addressed. Discuss the edits not the editor and remain civil. Thank you and happy editing! Once the case begins and talk is intitiated, use this section for the main dicsussion. --] (]) 00:07, 3 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :Why is this at DRN? Other than the filing editor, a ], summarily reverting well-sourced text, coupled with invective and personal attacks against anyone who dares insert material to this BLP that provides anything other than a PR flackweasel's spin on a highly controversial subject, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the edits in dispute. ] (]) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I concur with Fladrif's comment's on the article's talk pages. There was no serious discussion between the two editors before filing here. Removing well-sourced content while accusing other editors of bad faith and malicious activity is a bit inappropriate. If you have a specific BLP issue, I recommend taking it to ]. --v/r ] (]) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Additionally, DRN only deals with content disputes, not conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be taken to ]. --v/r ] (]) 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you mean conduct for your last sentence. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fixed. --v/r ] (]) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| There has been and continues to be extensive discussion on this issues both prior to and during the initiation of this dispute (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michael_Welner#Revisiting_New_Edits). However, the dispute resolution was initiated when Jcally subverted discussion to post content on the BPL. While initiating this resolution indirectly helped curb that behavior, the issues about the content still remains. I ask that you please take a close look at the most recent edits both by Fladrif reinstating Jcally66 misrepresentation of her sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Welner&diff=next&oldid=515706246.] (]) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fladrif raises a separate issue above that I agree should be addressed in a more appropriate forum. Those involved in resolution, please see additional edits by Fladrif under discussion . Fladrif, should this content matter be address separately as well? I am still figuring out proper forums.] (]) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Basically, we at DRN will help you fix the ] and ] issues, but any allegation of another user's misconduct should go to ]. --v/r ] (]) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article appears to be free of ] and has an ample amount of citations. I tagged the page, as it uses bare URLs for citations, which are prone to ]. This can be fixed by filling them in using {{tl|Cite Web}} templates (using ]), but this content disputes stems from OR and NPOV issues. The article is well-sourced, and I don't see original research in it. Perhaps you can link me to it? --v/r ] (]) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Electriccatfish2, I am referring to 2 sections in particular. The first is "The Forensic Panel" under the Professional Career section can be found here. Jcally66 wrote, “Welner's theories and practice regarding The Forensic Panel's “peer-review” are controversial, and have been criticized as for Welner using employees rather than independent experts to conduct the review. The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” '''This paragraph is completely unsourced.''' Jcally66 goes on to write, "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers." . From the source itself the DA were asked about how they felt about the fees and they replied “If we were right, and Mrs. Yates was sane, how much should Welner's testimony cost, in nontax dollars per dead child? Especially when the media poisoned the well from which prospective jurors drank?” This is in contrary to prosecutors stating they were misled. The second source Jcally66 lists does not support the statement either. The issue is that any one can link a statement to an non-supporting article, because no one polices the reliability of the source. In this case, the references might as well be an add to an eye cream, because they do not contain anything about prosecutors claiming they were misled by Welner. These are just a few examples.] (]) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :The lines "The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” and "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers.” were written by Fladrif, not me. Your dispute is with him.--] (]) 15:47, 4 October 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)=== | |||
| :::::The second section is here. Fladrif wrote "Proceedings of the U.S. military against ] by a Guantanamo military tribunal, in which Welner's testimony has highly controversial and largely discredited." When I brought to Fladrif's attention that he added a link to an article or site that is no longer available, he disregarded the input and subvertted the issue claiming that it was "my opinion" that the sources were wrong and making false allegations. But all one has to do is read the articles cite to see that they say nothing of the sort. When asked to remove the contentious unsupported content Fladrif, blew me of plain and simple. I am asking that you take a closer look at what is being done here. I know those governing this forum are savvy enough to see through these subtle violations of Misplaced Pages policy.] (]) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====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) | |||
| :This dispute has been inactive for some time. Is our assistance still required? <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:16, 6 October 2012 (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. ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Men's Rights == | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :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)=== | |||
| {{DR case status|open}}<!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 342 --> | |||
| Please read ]. This is the new set of rules for this mediation. | |||
| {{drn filing editor|CSDarrow|15:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 15:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| 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%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Men's Rights}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * {{User|CSDarrow}} | |||
| * {{User| Memotype}} | |||
| * {{User| Memills}} | |||
| * {{User| Perpetualization}} | |||
| * {{User| Cailil}} | |||
| * {{User| Slp1}} | |||
| * {{User| Binksternet}} | |||
| * {{User| Kaldari}} | |||
| * {{User| Kevin Gorman}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| Are there any other questions at this time? | |||
| An impasse has been reached at | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| ===Third statements by editors (Autism)=== | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Allegations_of_Rape_2 | |||
| 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) | |||
| as to whether the statement,(which atm is), | |||
| ====List of discussions from WhatamIdoing==== | |||
| "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime". | |||
| 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) | |||
| The argument is over whether this statement is reliably sourced and/or of undue weight. | |||
| :@] ::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) | |||
| The section being | |||
| :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==== | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape. | |||
| 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: | |||
| * ] | |||
| Discussion has been lengthy and has clearly reached an impasse. There is a need for some impartial eyes. If anyone could help it would be appreciated. This page is under probation and deals with a controversial topic. | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ''(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) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| Apart from very lengthy debate, nothing else. This is the first appeal for help. | |||
| ===Fourth statement by moderator (Autism)=== | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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). | |||
| Atm I feel an experienced neural editor could aid the discussion in reaching a consensus. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Memotype ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Memills ==== | |||
| Are there any other questions? | |||
| Inclusion of the statement that men's right groups support marital rape is clearly WP:UNDUE. | |||
| ] (]) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Fourth statements by editors (Autism)=== | |||
| By analogy it is as if statement by one feminist that "All men are rapists, and that is all that they are" should be included in the article on the feminist movement because it represents an important platform of the movement. | |||
| 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) | |||
| In both cases, these are outlier statements that fall under WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE ] (]) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for the summary and helpful questions. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Perpetualization ==== | |||
| In my mind the issue is simple. The statement is: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." ] gives us three scenarios: | |||
| :*If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; | |||
| ::This viewpoint is not held in the majority. ] provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it. | |||
| :*If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name '']'' adherents; | |||
| ::"Some men's rights activists" is sentence that does not name adherents. | |||
| :*If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. | |||
| ::The last option is does not belong in wikipedia. | |||
| 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. | |||
| WP:UNDUE therefore calls for us to '''remove''' the statement. If another editor wished to add the statement again, with specific "] adherents" named, as required by WP:UNDUE, I would not object to that. Without named adherents, the statement is certainly given undue weight. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Editing/Extending: | |||
| 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. | |||
| I will add that it appears that the statement may be true outside of the United States. Still, the use of the word "some" is necessarily prejudicial and the article is generally US focused (and reads as such). Perhaps naming countries where the viewpoint is mainstream, noting that it is not mainstream within the United States, and providing prominent adherents from the minority within the United States. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I also vigorously object to dated sources in the discussion. The Mens Rights movement in the United States is leaps and bounds from where it was 20-30 years ago. A history section noting view that were ''formerly'' mainstream would be a welcome addition to the article, but the article would be prejudicial to conflate current advocacy with advocacy of the late 80s and early 90s (as ] has done). | |||
| 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. | |||
| Lastly, I note that there are several variations on this viewpoint, not all of which are identical and which are easily misstated from sources: | |||
| *men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws | |||
| *men's rights groups feel that marital rape laws are often used for false claims as a weapon in divorce cases | |||
| *men's group opposes marital rape laws because they feel that accusations of marital rape are fundamentally irrefutable (as ] found a source for). | |||
| --] (]) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If the sources indicate that different men's rights groups hold varied opinions on marital rape, then we can state that, and provide a brief summary of the prominent adherents and their viewpoints. It seems slanderous to cover such a wide range of viewpoints for such different rationales with "some men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws" | |||
| ] (]) |
:No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. ] (]) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::<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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ===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 ]. | |||
| 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 ]. 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 ]. 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. | |||
| 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? | |||
| ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (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)==== | |||
| 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? | |||
| :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) | |||
| === |
===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. -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| 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) | |||
| Very simply, sources state that there have been (and are) attempts by Men's Rights groups to campaign against Marital Rape legislation. I listed the academic peer-reviewed sources and the relevant text from them (with page numbers) on the talk page. Kaldari listed the material about current action by groups in India related to this. <br>The interpretation by CSDarrow & Perpetualization of NPOV makes no sense. The point about "adherents to a POV" in that policy refers to sources. The construction being placed upon it is that we should find individual Men's rights activists who hold these views to prove the sources correct - ''that's original research''. <br>As it stands the point about marital rape is sourced, and accorded the weight of one sentence in an appropriate section in the article. It is not being given undue prominent in the article itself or relative to the sources. I'll also note that this area is under ] and edits removing sourced content as well as tendentious argument are sanctionable. <br>I've stated on the page, as has, to the best of my knowledge, Kevin that we agree with the removal of the "marriage contract" piece but the sentence about campaigns about marital rape law is appropriate WRT to this site's policies. I've already suggested alternative wording ("scholars contend") to resolve the "some" issue.--] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 3 October 2012 (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. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Slp1 ==== | |||
| CSDarrow and Perpetualization appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of various V, NPOV and RS policies. The same arguments keep getting repeated, and then the goalposts moved. | |||
| *First, WP's NPOV policy and Jimbo's cited comments do not support the deletion of this well-cited information. In fact ] says that ''"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."'' As has been pointed out over and over again, multiple highly reliable academic sources include this information, so it actually would be undue NOT to include it. Jimbo's (cherrypicked) requirements have actually been more than achieved as for this possibly minority opinion (at least in the West), it is actually very ''"easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"''. | |||
| *Nevertheless, when these editors asked for prominent adherents, other editors provided several examples of notable men's rights organizations and their officials who have made opposed marital rape (see Kaldari's comments). | |||
| *Attempts have been made to dispute what the reliable sources say by doing original research to prove them "wrong". The research was actually faulty since there are at least two of the websites listed that do oppose spousal rape laws (Kaldari mentions one, and here is another). And in any case, original research by editors to "disprove" reliable sources, is simply not how we write an encyclopedia article. | |||
| *But now the goalpost has changed...We now have arguments that the sources about the US are out of date (20-30 years is mentioned), when the reality is that the US-based sources were published in 2005, 2003 and 1994. Not one is even 20 years old, and most are quite recent. | |||
| *We also now have arguments that the statement may refer only outside of the US. However, the key point is that's not what the sources say; and once again examples of the website of current US-based men's rights activists have been provided to show that this is false.(See Kaldari's comments) | |||
| *And now we have claims that this material might be and . Well, if that is the case you might want to warn the scholarly presses that published the material in the first place. ] (]) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Binksternet ==== | |||
| --] (]) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Kaldari ==== | |||
| First, I would like to respond to a misleading argument above by ]: | |||
| * "CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it." | |||
| ** This is simply false. At least one of the pages linked to from CSDarrow's list does actually list decriminalizing marital rape as an agenda item: "Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "'''spousal rape'''," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal." | |||
| ** Secondly, CSDarrow's list doesn't include any Indian men's rights organizations, such as ] which successfully campaigned against criminalizing marital rape only 2 years ago. | |||
| ===Sixth statement by moderator (Autism)=== | |||
| The statement under contention has met every criteria that has been offered. First of all, there are numerous reliable 3rd party academic sources that back up the claim (can't include quotations due to 2000 char limit): | |||
| 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. | |||
| * ''Current Controversies on Family Violence'' | |||
| * ''American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia'' | |||
| * ''Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure'' | |||
| 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. | |||
| Despite this, some editors have insisted that ] requires that prominent adherents be named. Here are some prominent adherents (in their own words): | |||
| ] (]) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Tom Williamson, founder of the ]: "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws." | |||
| * Virag Dhulia, Public Relations Officer of ]: "This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced." | |||
| ===Sixth statement by editors (Autism)=== | |||
| I'm open to revising the wording to address concerns, but I don't think there's adequate reason to remove the statement entirely. | |||
| 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''' | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Kevin Gorman ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| I've been, unfortunately, too busy irl lately to involve myself in this article as much as I would like. I view this as a relatively minor issue compared to those the article as a whole suffers from. I have not studied this dispute in depth; I've reviewed the posted on-wiki sources and most of people's on-wiki posts, though. From what I've seen no one has made, so far, a convincing argument as to why this information shouldn't be included. Slp and Kaldari have found a pretty significant number of RS'es that contain this information. Some of them I would describe as high quality, some of them have recently been published, and most of them have been published recently enough that their age shouldn't cast doubt on their accuracy. ] (]) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| === Men's Rights discussion 1 === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| * Note: Please note Men's rights movement is under ]; please let me or another uninvolved admin know if there are any sanctionable actions which occur. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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". | |||
| Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| Right now I am waiting for more of the comment sections above to be filled in. In the meantime, I would encourage everyone involved to read the "Guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --] (]) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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". | |||
| :Hi! I am another DRN volunteer and will be assisting Guy Macon in resolving this dispute. The participants should also be aware of ]. After all of the users involved make opening statements, a DRN volunteer will open up this discussion. --v/r ] (]) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Addressing the Second Issue''' | |||
| ::While we are waiting for the opening statements, I would like to point out that This article has been placed on ]. See ] for details. --] (]) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you missed it, I actually pointed that out in this section above before you accepted this case so that anyone considering accepting it would be prepared, and so they would know to notify me or another uninvolved admin if sanctions were indicated. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yup. Read right past it without it registering. Sorry about that. (Note to self: Next time, edit Misplaced Pages ''after'' smoking crack...) --] (]) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Timing. It's all about the timing. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hello, I am Amadscientist and will also be assisting where needed in this DR/N but to a lesser extent as the first two volunteers.--] (]) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] covers editing while in a altered state of consciousness. ] (]) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Regarding waiting for opening statements, Binksternet has been actively editing other pages but has not responded here, Memills last edited Misplaced Pages on 30 September, and Memotype last edited Misplaced Pages on 14 September. How long should we wait? I want everyone involved to weigh in, but i also don't want to frustrate people with undue delays. Opinions? --] (]) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As both sides of dispute are here, the discussion may be opened IMO. The others may jump in later if they become active and/or willing to participate. — ] (]•]) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds good. '''This thread is now open for discussion.''' --] (]) 19:20, 4 October 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: | |||
| '''Comment''' - I looked at the sources that are listed above to support inclusion of the material. They look satisfactory to me. The Segal source in particular, p 276, is conclusive (describing a campaign against laws which define marital rape). That source is published by the University of California. So, the essence of the sentence should be included. Can it be wordsmithed? Sure ... in situations like this it is always better if the specific advocates are named in the sentence. But ] does not exclude this sentence. --] (]) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm open to the idea of including specific advocates or groups so that it doesn't sound like a sweeping statement about the movement in general. ] (]) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::I would like to discuss for a moment the citations for the current article's statement "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=515903480 in case it changes). | |||
| A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD. | |||
| ::When examining something like this, I start with the question "does the source say what we say it says" and I look at the quality of the sources. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::For Ref , the source supports the statement. It says that http://www.ejfi.org "demands .. to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime". I could not find evidence supporting that claim on the ejfi.org website. That's a typical problem when a source is more of an advocacy source that an academic source -- they don't say where to look on ejfi.org and they don't give the exact wording. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::For Ref , Google books gave me this error: "Restricted Page: You have reached your viewing limit for this book." Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim? | |||
| '''Conclusion''' | |||
| ::For Ref , The section before it says "The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia" does not support the claim. The "free one day trial" asks for a credit card number. Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim? | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::For Ref , the source supports the statement. Again, an obvious advocacy publication, not academic research or unbiased reporting, and the source only says that some unnamed men's groups campaigned against the legal recognition of marital rape in 1994. That's 18 years ago. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::For Ref , The source supports the statement. The mens group is named; it is the Save Indian Family Foundation ( http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ and a person is qouted: Virag Dhulia. Furthermore, it appears to be from a legitimate news source rather than an obvious advocacy book and is less than 5 years old If it were me, this is the only cite I would use for this statement. --] (]) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{Divider line}} | |||
| '''Comment:''' Without commenting on the issue, some of the editors seems to not be aware of ]. Unfortunately, not all sources are available for free. Indeed, many high-quality sources are only available either by buying a book or article, or using an academic library. Misplaced Pages explicitly endorses the use of such sources. If you have trouble getting them, ] can often help. --] (]) 20:55, 4 October 2012 (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. | |||
| :I am quite familiar with ]. My philosophy is this: if you recently added a citation or you are vigorously defending a citation, then I can only assume that ''you'' have access, and it seems quite reasonable to ask you to look at the source that you can presumably access and give us an exact quote that supports the statement in the article. --] (]) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have access to all the sources and listed all the quotes on the talkpage of the article quite a while ago . So did Cailil . I disagree with the contention that books published by highly reliable academic sources can or should be marginalized as "advocacy" books, and I don't know of any policy or guideline that would support this. On the contrary, they are precisely the books that have the highest reputation for fact-checking etc (e.g. published by University presses) that we are supposed to privilege per ] and ] ] (]) 22:27, 4 October 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. | |||
| ::::Guy you've made some rather extreme comments above. You've inferred that nobody bothered to list sources and quotes when in fact, as Slp1 said, both she and I had done so - and I linked above to it above. You've dismissed a number of sources' reliability in a way that has no basis in policy. <br>In relation to your readings: Re ref 80 - try this link; regarding ref 74 are we looking at the same source ''Current Controversies on Family Violence'' written by 3 academics and published by Sage? Furthermore a search using google of EJFI site for "spousal rape" and "marital rape" does indeed generate a number of hits. It is this source's opinion that this site is advocating something. It's not our job to go outside policy and do ] to prove OR attempt to disprove a source. <br>Regarding ref84 you've claimed that ''Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure'' is NOT an academic piece. It may be a feminist text but last time I checked that doesn't disqualify a source's as academic, or make it advocacy. That is your opinion and NPOV does not requires that sources are neutral - merely that they are reliable. Your conflation of these core policy concepts and dismissal of these sources is frankly incredible and raises questions about the ability of this board to handle topics under probation (which need extreme care and precision) - I will ping KC about this--] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], please refrain from making accusations against the volunteers here. I do not see Guy's comments as extreme or suggesting anything of the sort. Remember this is where you show your sources and the article talkpage is seperate. We will not be jumping back and forth so please be prepared to share all sources here. If there is a paywall and sources are unavailable someone will need to provide the text and we, of course, will trust the good faith of the editors. Please do the same with the volunteers.--] (]) 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Amadscientist my above is not an attack on Guy - it's criticism. It's also quite fair. I'm taking the matter to the talk page. AFAIK there are no paywall issues - the relevant sources were listed and quoted from, albeit in a diff I presented in my statement - perhaps this was missed by you & guy--] <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::User:Cailil. You may call your comments what you choose of course, but please do not overstate comments by myself or other volunteers. I did not say you attacked anyone.--] (]) 12:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While I agree with Cailil that it is inappropriate both in policy and practice to seek marginalize sources based "I can't confirm it"-type statements, (most especially when we are talking about websites that may have changed a good deal), in the spirit of good faith, here is Charles Corry, the longtime president of Edfi, mentioning the introduction of ''"the crime of marital rape in many localities"'' as one of the "false flags" ''"used to insure that any action by a man can be used against him."''. It can't be the original source for the book because of the date, but it shows the way the wind blows in that organization. ] (]) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| As a dispute resolution volunteer, I choose which cases to help with based upon the basic principle of having no opinion one way or the other about the topic of the dispute. And indeed, the actual question of what some men's group did or did not say bores me. I am just here to help you to resolve your dispute. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Attacking one of the volunteers who is working on your case accomplishes nothing (it doesn't hurt you either, BTW; we are all committed to be fair and impartial despite such behavior.) Please write about '''article content''', not about '''user conduct'''. If you have s ''serious'' accusation concerning a volunteer's competence or impartiality, bring it up at ], not here in the middle of a dispute. | |||
| {{Dotted divider}} | |||
| I have inferred nothing, and if anyone thinks that I have they need to go back and read the guide for participants at the top of this page again. All I am doing is confirming that the sources say what we say they say. I fully expect that they will, but I am still going to check. I have to start somewhere, but be assured that I will verify any claims made any party to this dispute. In the following, I may seem to be challenging one side of the dispute and not the other, but rest assured that this is just an artifact of my having to start somewhere. I will look at the claims of the other side of the dispute very soon. Also note that I have purposely avoided checking to see who wrote the text and added the citations I am examining. I don't want that to affect my evaluation. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I have not "dismissed" any sources' reliability. I have every intention of ''questioning'' every sources' reliability, which is not the same thing. In particular, in the above I am asking which of the following claims the citation to ''Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure'' supports: | |||
| 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> | |||
| :"Some men's rights activists<sup>''''''</sup> assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." | |||
| <!-- 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" /> | |||
| or | |||
| 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}} | |||
| :"Lynne Segal, author of ''Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure'', claims that 1n 1994 certain unnamed men's rights activists in Kansas City asserted that marital rape should not be considered a crime." | |||
| {{Dotted divider}} | |||
| When I see a source that says | |||
| 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. | |||
| :"Their agenda suggests that the origins of these middle-class men's fears in women's growing readiness to abandon marriages with men who make them miserable, once they have some means of economic independence. They may be miserable because of men's emotional illiteracy..." | |||
| --] (]) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Divider line}} | |||
| I am reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of the positions of those same men's rights groups. If you want Misplaced Pages to report that this source made that claim, the source is reliable for that. If you want us to use Misplaced Pages's voice to present that claim as an established fact, you need a reliable source for that, and this simply isn't one. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I am also concerned by the overall nature of that string of citations. Normally, we want to find a reliable source and report what the source says. When I see citation to a book criticizing a 1994 event in Kansas City followed by a 2010 news report from India, it makes me suspect that the conclusion came first and then someone started looking for citations to support it. | |||
| ===== First paragraph ===== | |||
| Again, I have every intention of giving any claims made by the other parties in this dispute the same level of scrutiny. This is just where I happened to start. --] (]) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :I apologize if you see my criticism above as an attack ''on you'' - it's not, it's a (very serious) note, not primarily about you Guy but, about this board. I will take that aspect of the issue to the talk page as you suggest, but for the record I do understand that you are acting in good faith and with very good intentions (but I'll remind you that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions")... <br>Guy perhaps you read past the part in my openning statements where I stated above that I already made a suggestion regarding the "some" issue and regarding the necessary attribution on the article's talk page. I agree sentence needs to read along the lines of: <blockquote>Scholars argue/contend that men's rights groups have campaigned against "marital rape" legislation.</blockquote> Scholars may need clarification etc, but that's fine, and your suggests are good - however I'm not sure that listing all the individual cases is wp:due, whereas the overall point that different actions at different times have ''criticized/campaigned against marital rape'' is definitely due. However as you see below the actual dispute is not about wording but inclusion - and as we have all outlined in our statements above this rests on CSDarrow's novel interpretations of policy--] <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 2) Remove „(or conditions)“ because it’s confusing (general audience doesn’t know what is meant by it). | |||
| ::: Firstly I would argue the use of 'Scholars' here violates ] , ], in fact 'Scholars ' is prominently highlighted as a weasel word. | |||
| 3) Include „differences and difficulties in social interaction“ as not all social features of being autistic are difficulties. | |||
| :::Secondly the opinions of scholars are of little note unless they are indulging in scholarship. I am sure some scholars also think broccoli is revolting or that basketball is boring. Scholarship involves the use of a scholarly methodology ]. Unsubstantiated opinions, on a matter of verifiable fact, concerning those you at ideological odds with is not scholarship. There is another word for it. ] (]) 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::I'm happy to wordsmith scholars but the rest of your point doesn't make sense CSDarrow. What your comments above and below do is attempt to disparage the work of academics that have opinions you seem not to like. The essence of NPOV is thus: wikipedia records all notable POVs neutrally (i.e we don't put our spin on them), according them appropriate weight as per how widely held they are in the mainstream (see ]). Your constructions on site policy are both tendentious and unreflective of those policies--] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 5) Mention strengths of autistic people, like pattern recognition. | |||
| ::No apology needed. There is a huge difference between claiming that a group has campaigned against marital rape legislation and claiming that a group says that marital rape should not be considered a crime. A cursory look at the websites of various men's groups shows a lot of talk about false accusations and the problem with accepting the word of the accuser without collaborating evidence, complaints about the name of the accused being revealed while the name of the accuser is kept secret, etc. I think those positions should be cited and put in the article, along with common counterarguments like the problem of requiring witnesses or physical evidence of a crime that by definition does not leave witnesses or physical evidence. That would be quite easy to document. So far, nobody has come up with a citation to a reliable source for the entirely different claim that some unnamed men's groups say that marital rape should not be considered a crime. All evidence suggests that there are no men's groups in any western country that hold that position. --] (]) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Second paragraph ===== | |||
| :::Yes the distinction between the words crime and legislation is important and agree that "legislation" is the more sourcable one. However the "crime" construction is also sourced - did you get to read the ''Encyclopaedia of Masculinities'' entry that you couldn't access days ago, here's the link again - this one uses the "crime" construction: "the status of marital rape as a crime" p.167. I can transcribe the whole paragraph if you can't get to read it--] <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Guy, I have to say that I continue to strongly disagree with several of your comments here. WP doesn't use opinions about bias as determinant in determining reliability. Let's take another example. If an academic text or journal article came out against homeopathy would you really be "reluctant to accept that source as being reliable on the topic of "? Assuming no, why is this different here? | |||
| ::::Please note that the disputed text talks about "men's rights activists" opposing the legislation, not "men's rights groups". While I strongly disagree that we should be trying to prove reliable sources "right" (or "wrong") with our own ] on websites etc, editors have already presented on this page direct, primary evidence from multiple sources that there ''is'' evidence that men's rights activists and groups in the west and elsewhere have and do opposed marital rape legislation. I linked above to a 2007 post from the president of EJFI above, an , Kaldari above linked to a list of men's rights objectives on the anti-misandry.com , and also above quoted the President of the ] who appeared on CNN stating that marital rape laws shouldn't exist. (For the record, CNN's introduction to the interview says ''"and we're going to meet the attorney who wrote the recent proposal to strengthen California's spousal rape law. And we'll meet the president of a men's rights group who believes that such laws should not exist."'') (CNN transcript on Lexis-Nexis). I'm on a very slow internet connection, and can't do more at present, but it is indisputable from primary sources that (some) men's rights activists ''do'' oppose marital rape legislation and much more importantly from the point of view of inclusion, that this has been noted in reliable secondary sources, with four of them stating it in the particular format that they oppose marital rape as a crime to eliminate marital rape as a crime (www.ejfi.org)]; ;; support has come from men's rights organizations and conservative Christian groups, which tend to argue that a crime such as marital rape should not be on the books because consent to sex is part of the marriage covenant"] --] (]) 15:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: spl1, Concerning ] and the CNN interview, did Williamson state he opposed Marital Rape laws in a manner that suggested he felt a man should be able to rape his wife and be immune from prosecution? If so could you post the quote? I believe you have the transcript. ] (]) 15:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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''.“ | |||
| === Men's Rights discussion 2 === | |||
| '''Comment''' - Firstly I would like to thank all those participating in this discussion, in particular the volunteers for the giving of their time. My arguments are based on ] and ] . Sorry if this is a bit long, I have tried to be succinct. | |||
| 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. | |||
| (1) Undue Weight | |||
| 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 | |||
| My argument that the statement | |||
| 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 ...“ | |||
| :*Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime. | |||
| ===== Third paragraph ===== | |||
| is undue-weight is based Jimbo Wales' paraphrased statement from ], I see nothing overriding this statement. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :*If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts | |||
| :*If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; | |||
| :*If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. | |||
| 2) Include mental health issues like depression and anxiety as co-occurring conditions , ideally with a reference to masking and stigma . | |||
| In essence if a minority hold the view than you should be able to easily name prominent adherents, and imo the spirit of the statement is that there is an expectation to do so. With the possible exception of someone in India, no one can find any adherents of this view let alone prominent adherents. Despite not being able to demonstrate a significant minority holds this view, Cailil & Spl1 make the argument that the first statement applies and as such the second statement is now mute, (I am trying not to Strawman here). They absolve themselves of considering the 'significant minority' case by saying it requires original research even though it is patently not satisfied. If a minority do not hold a view I fail to see how a majority can hold it. Their stance imo is not in the spirit of ]. The first rule of Misplaced Pages is that there are no rules, a statement designed precisely for this sort case and for common sense to prevail. | |||
| ===== Fourth paragraph ===== | |||
| In short if a majority or even a significant minority supposedly hold this view and hardly anyone can be found with this view, then a common sense test has been failed. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Furthermore claiming a group or individual campaigns for the decriminalization of marital rape, ie. impunity from the law for raping one's spouse, is a significant claim. Before any group is impugned with this view on Misplaced Pages, the burden of proof that the claim satisfies ], ] and ] should also be significant. Misplaced Pages also has a moral and legal obligation not to libel any individual or group. Atm all we have supporting this statement is the unsupported opinions of some who think Men Right's groups hold this view. This is entirely inadequate. | |||
| 2) Change „myth“ to „entirely disproven conspiracy theory“ | |||
| (2) Reliability of the Sources. | |||
| 3) Use this citation for the narrowing gender gap between males and females and also mention the biases leading to females being under-diagnosed. | |||
| The claim is made here that because a source is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' that its reliability is beyond reproach, even if it fails any common sense test. There are many media through which academics publish their work such as:- | |||
| --] (]) 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Rigorously peer reviewed journals involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations | |||
| :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. | |||
| :* Reviewed conference publications which are generally checked for appropriateness of subject matter, glaring errors , format and suitable citations. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ===Back-and-forth discussion (Autism)=== | |||
| :* Unreviewed conference publications, the work is generally only returned if it is patently absurd. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :*Journals and essay collections serving an ideologically based community eg, Journal of Marxism. | |||
| ::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. ] (]) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :*Collections of papers or essays published by an Academic press, sometimes with a degree of meaningful peer review and sometimes none at all.. | |||
| {{u|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}} wrote (above): | |||
| :* Books by a single 'scholarly' author published by an Academic press, which usually have no meaningful review at all. | |||
| {{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.}} | |||
| There is nothing wrong with opinionated work and limited peer review. Diversity of opinions are essential to debate and the life blood of new ideas. With the exception of sometimes the hard sciences, academics are not automatons deterministically sifting through evidence and logically coming to conclusions like Data from Star Trek. They play with ideas; try and say seeming absurd things; sometimes have strong ideological bases and are sometimes deliberately provocactive. Fully rigorous peer review is very time consuming and requires a lot of resources, having other less rigorous outlets of publication allows work to enter the melting pot of ideas that is Academia, Ultimately it is from this melting pot that we get :- | |||
| (a) Correction: The American ''Psychiatric'' Association publishes the DSM. | |||
| :* Rigorously peer reviewed work involving multiple anonymous reviewers. With any claims rigorously supported by citations. | |||
| (b) "... it is not even mentioned." - What is not mentioned? | |||
| Which in general can be accepted as reliable without reservation. Other forms of academic publication require more scrutiny. A glaring example of scholarship gone awry being the ]. | |||
| (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 ]. | |||
| In short just because a work is 'Scholarly', 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' does not necessarily make it a reliable source. This very point is addressed in ]. | |||
| Simply listing an alleged disorder in the DSM medicalizes it. I hope you understand this important point. | |||
| :*Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. | |||
| 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) | |||
| The notion that if the adjectives 'Scholarly' or 'Academic' or 'Peer Reviewed' can be attached to a piece of work then the source is reliable, is prevalent in certain parts of Misplaced Pages and is causing enormous damage imo. The notion is based on a lack of understanding of the way Academic publishing works. The sources cited here are not reliable and are the unsupported opinions of those the authors are at ideological odds with. Guy Macon has summarized my thoughts on these works succinctly. | |||
| :a) By that statement, I meant the DSM criteria for ASD does not mention medical treatments. | |||
| Ultimately the reliability of these sources, or not, is largely an argument of opinion. If we can not reach consensus then I feel the matter should go to experts at ] to adjudicate, the result of which I think will have a profound effect on Misplaced Pages. This is a serious precedent setting matter. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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 | |||
| Thanks again ] (]) 13:23, 5 October 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 | |||
| :"With any claims rigorously supported by citations" is not something have ever encountered. It's an entirely unreasonable claim - the primary aim of scholarly publishing is to present ''new'' knowledge, or, in Misplaced Pages terms, "original research". New claims need to be supported, sure, but not only by citations, but in particular by data and argument. And claims that are widely accepted in a given community are often published without any citations - we know that <math>|N|=\aleph_0</math>. --] (]) 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: There is however an expectation to justify how that new knowledge was obtained with citations where appropriate. My list was a summary not an exhaustive description. ] (]) 13:57, 5 October 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) | |||
| === Men's Rights discussion 3 === | |||
| ::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) | |||
| It certainly seems like the pro-statement side have a number of citations with specific names on their side. Dismissing them because they come the world's largest English-speaking nation (which should have some importance to the English WP) hardly seems fair; and the whole Anti-dowry laws section is all about SIFF, so mentioning them in respect to martial rape laws doesn't seem unreasonable. Nor does it seem that the same standard is being held to other cites; ''Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements'' is 12 years old, and used it many, many times in the article. In the section "Military Conscription", it's the newest cite; the next most recent is ''Redeeming men: religion and masculinities'' from 1996.--] (]) 11:47, 6 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :] has addressed the issue of the Indian Men's Right movement above. From what I know it is many ways a separate movement from that in the West operating in an environment of different cultural mores and practices. Although there are intersections in the views of both movements there are also vast divides. I feel they should mostly be dealt with in a separate section, else their views could be pejoratively impugned on the Western movement and visa versa. | |||
| 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 before the SIFF statement is included it should verified that the view is also held by either a majority or significant minority of the Indian Men's Rights Movement, ie that ] is satisfied. I know very little about SIFF and the quote was only recently added during the discussion of this section. Atm all we have is a report of one statement and little to no contextual background. Having someone with more than a passing knowledge of the Indian Men's Rights Movement would be helpful here.] (]) 15:41, 6 October 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. | |||
| :From hereon in, I'll be handling this dispute. I have some more reading to do, so please bear with me. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :oh, and just quickly, , and (regarding the opinions of relevant scientists and other experts). | |||
| == Turkish Cypriots == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{DR case status|closed}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 343 --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Ghuzz|20:52, 4 October 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? | |||
| {{DRN archive top|As the filing editor admits, the case is currently burdened with conduct problems. Please, try to resolve the issues with each other's conduct (] seems most appropriate right now), and try DRN again once the content issues are separated from conduct. Alternatively, try to move on other articles for now and give this dispute a fresh start on the article's talk page after some time. — ] (]•]) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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... | |||
| :"'''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) | |||
| == Sri Lankan Vellalar == | |||
| {{DR case status|closed}} | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Kautilyapundit|05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | ||
| Line 505: | Line 686: | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | ||
| * {{pagelinks| |
* {{pagelinks|Sri Lankan Vellalar}} | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|Kautilyapundit}} | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|Luigi Boy}} | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | ||
| 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. | |||
| In September 27th part of article deleted with argument "some infos not stated in source given". And after deleting that part only one user manipulated article and filled with unreliable and subjective informations. And today with adding new sources, i turned article back to old version again. But after few minutes E4024 user undo my edits with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". With current situation article is looking highly under Turkish nationalist ideology, subjective, weak sourced and far from reality. | |||
| 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%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| I tried to ask whats his reason to undo my sourced edits on users talk page and i didnt get reply. Also I opened section in talk page of article again with giving reliable sources and try to explain situation. But only thing that user did was making fun. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How |
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | ||
| You can look at current situation of the article (objectivity, reliability of sources and info) and also look edit that i tried to do today (again objectivity, reliability of sources and info). Also in Talk Page of an article you can check last two title to understand situation and perspectives. And help to protect one Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| ==== Opening comments by E4024 ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| 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. | |||
| === Turkish Cypriots discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party editor and a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. I have a question: the were made between ] and ]. The editing between ] and ] occurred on . Correct me if I'm wrong, but are all four users involved in the same content dispute? If so, the first two users should be listed as involved users, and notified of the DRN.--''']''' ] 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, a reminder: DRN does not handle conduct disputes and cannot protect pages. For other volunteers interested in participating, the prior discussion seems to be located ]. Although there was a prior discussion, it barely qualifies as extensive. And @Ghuzz, it's best to ] and avoid labeling , even if you disagree with the edits. Misplaced Pages has a very strict definition of vandalism, and it does not include neutrality contraventions (see ]). --''']''' ] 22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for reply SGCM. Regarding ] and ] - I think they are not directly involved in this situation. Turco85 had an argument (right or wrong) about source and deleted that infos. And yesterday I tried to back that info with more supporting source. The main problem here we have is ]'s behavior. About my first messages, I do accept that maybe I wasn't behaving right as well but because of it i created a new title to discuss situation with other users with nice way. And ] still continued his behavior. Also I saw that he had similar discussions with other users too ]. Basically there are some fact about one subject and as a Misplaced Pages user I'm trying to edit one article with include both perspectives which are real but some user come and first says like "old one was better" and then change ground and says "this sources are stupid". The sources that he claim to be stupid: One is ] member and the legal owner of island ], and the other one is one intercultural training research project which funded by ]. Lets look both version of article again and all of these things and try to reasonable. How in Misplaced Pages when someone try to edit one page with this kind of sources other can have a luxury to say "thats humorous", "i didnt like it" etc. (] (]) 01:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy ==== | |||
| == Torah == | |||
| 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 | |||
| {{DR case status|closed}}<!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 345 --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Robot wagner|06:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive discussion prior to filing DR/N. See guidelines above. --] (]) 10:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| - The inclusion of the mythology section | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| '''Terminology Differences''' | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Torah}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * {{User|Robot wagner}} | |||
| * {{User| 208.84.53.129}} | |||
| * {{User| Learned69}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically: | |||
| The following section | |||
| Orthodox, Sphardic, a majority of Israeli Jews , many of whom are not observant , and other Jews, maintain that the Torah was given to Moses by God. The Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, as well as the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), states that Moses wrote the Torah, and The Mishnah asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism. Many Jews also accept the 13 Principles of Faith that were established by Maimonides, one of which that states; The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by | |||
| God. | |||
| Is a mistepresentation of the source, and OR. I have rewritten it to reflect what the source actually says, as follows. | |||
| - {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}} refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the ]. | |||
| An opinion poll of Israeli Jews <ref name=jcpa> Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daniel Elazar Papers Index, Israel: Religion and Society </ref>, showed that a small minority (55%) accepted the statement that the Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, as well as the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), states that Moses wrote the Torah. The Mishnah<ref>Sanhedrin 11:1</ref> asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism.<ref>Avigdor Miller, A Nation is Born, Page 87</ref> Many religious Jews also accept the 13 Principles of Faith that were established by Maimonides, one of which that states; The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by God.<ref> Maimonides, Commentary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11:1, Article 8 </ref> | |||
| - {{Langx|ta|வெள்ளாளர்|Veḷḷāḷar}} represents the caste name in contemporary usage. | |||
| However the misrepresentation keeps being added back in. | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| None | |||
| '''Third-Party Opinion''' | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Explain to the other parties that unsourced claims can not be made. Advise if admin action is appropriate should they continue. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by 208.84.53.129 ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| === Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion === | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Learned69 ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please |
<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)=== | |||
| === Torah discussion === | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| Are there any other questions? | |||
| ] (]) 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. | |||
| :</br> | |||
| : 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)=== | |||
| ===First statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Are there any other questions? | |||
| ] (]) 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. | |||
| :<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)=== | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | {{DRN archive bottom}} | ||
| == Imran Khan == | |||
| == Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics == | |||
| {{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|Andromedean|08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{drn filing editor|SheriffIsInTown|15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 08:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | <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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | ||
| * {{pagelinks| |
* {{pagelinks|Imran Khan}} | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|SheriffIsInTown}} | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|WikiEnthusiast1001}} | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|Veldsenk}} | ||
| * {{User| 88.88.166.111}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <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, ]. | |||
| A few months ago I wrote an article regarding the use of technology to improve sporting performance in the cycling at the London Olympics (Technology in track cycling). Since then there has been intense editing and attempts at removal of the article. There are three main views amongst editors. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| : One editor (Sport and politics) who wishes the article to be removed entirely. | |||
| ] | |||
| : another editor (88.88.166.111) who wishes the article to remain in some form, with the background of the controversy to be removed or/and the entire article removed out of the 'controversies section'. (Perhaps a better title would be 'GB team introduces new bikes at the London Olympics' so it is specific to the section?) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| : two editors (Andromedean, Showmebeef) who wish the content, background and location in the controversy section to remain, although there are several possible versions, the latest indicated in the location contains most of the points. | |||
| 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. | |||
| There have been other editors which have been briefly involved in the early stages of editing, although the article has changed since then. | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001 ==== | |||
| <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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| 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) | |||
| There has been a long and protracted discussion on the talk page, and it has also been subjected to a RfC without any additional outside comments to the best of my knowledge. I have attempted a dispute resolution before but this wasn't allowed during an RfC and was rejected. The Rfc has now finished so hopefully this process can be started. I have also briefly spoke above this on the teahouse page. | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Veldsenk ==== | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| <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 === | |||
| Clarify if any significant breaches of Wiki protocol such as Synthesis or No original research was used, to justify the articles inclusion, modification or removal. Clarify if the background information from cycling regulations and the public survey mentioned in the IMechE technical paper help to clarify the context, and so if this should be included. Clarify if the issues mentioned are specific enough to the London Olympics for inclusion in this section. | |||
| <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. ] | ] | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. ] | ] | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Showmebeef ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| I believe that this (section) article warrants its inclusion in the (main) article for the following reasons: | |||
| *CONTROVERSY: the infusion of technology (technology doping) into the sports of cycling, in particular track cycling, has been making headlines before and especially during the London Games. In a sports whereby placement is often determined down to 1/1000th sec, the impact is rather SIGNIFICANT. To the extend that one team (or maybe more) has poured millions of dollars into the research and safeguarding of such technologies thus obtained makes it an UNFAIR advantage. | |||
| *RELEVANCY: the reason that this section warrants its inclusion in this article is predicated on the fact that the team who has possession of various technologies contributing to the advantages has been safeguarding the said technologies leading up to the London Games, for obvious reasons such as the significance of the prestigious Summer Games and the attention it receives as host nation. The result is an overwhelming dominance in the sports. | |||
| The assertions I made above are backed by various sources as referenced in the (section) article. In particular, the article by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers provides scientific evidence from years of research into the subject. That it was published around the time of the Games is no coincidence. | |||
| ===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| I would also like to draw the attention of the reviewers to a previous similar technology doping case (] swim suit) where the technology employed, although LEGAL prior its banning, is so overwhelming it led to its ultimate banning years later. One notable difference is that one dominant technology is the main contributing factor, and it is available to ALL who have the financial resources to secure them. Note that the controversy is prominently covered in ], dubbed the "Plastic Games" where 43 World Records were set which were largely attributed to the use of the suits. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| That the contribution due to the wide coverage and discussion of the controversy which led to its ultimate banning cannot be underestimated. It is for this reason also that I appeal that this (section) article be included. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Are there any questions? ] (]) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Sport and politics ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| ===Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| This section, (not article) which was written by Andromedean was subject to an Rfc and there was outside input. The problem is it was mainly opposing what Andromedean had put in and called for its removal. The Rfc though was not formally closed. | |||
| 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: | |||
| This section is nothing more than trying to make out GB cycling cheated and is based up taking snipets from losing athletes, unrelated cycling events where the events and participation rules are different, such as the World Championships where more than one competitor can be entered per event compared to the Olympics where only one can be entered per event. Claiming that extra funding was a form of cheating and that using technology itself was a form of "doping" by providing an "unfair advantage". None of these claims are substantiated and the main source used is a academic industry report, where the section on technology doping is referring to athletes in hyperbaric oxygen chambers and not bicycles in anyway. | |||
| 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> | |||
| This section violates Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on topic relevance, POV, undue weight, synthesis of sources, misrepresentation of sources, original research and what Misplaced Pages is not (not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal). | |||
| ] | ] | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsetop|Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. ] (]) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :@] Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? ] | ] | 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) == | |||
| The section must be removed as it makes unsubstantiated claims based on cherry picking of information to suit the POV which Andromedean is trying to further. Further to this Andromodean has made claims of conflict of interest and that there is "an agenda of censorship" from those disagreeing with them, none of which are a demonstration of good faith editing from Andromodean. | |||
| {{DR case status|hold}} | |||
| Before the Wikkequette was closed a thread which can be found ] was initiated laying out some more of the issues in this section. | |||
| <!-- ] 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> | |||
| This section should be removed forthwith due to the number of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies violated. | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| ] (]) 11:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| ==== Opening comments by 88.88.167.157 alias 88.88.166.111 ==== | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)}} | |||
| There may be a case for inclusion of some parts of the section, hence my final opinion in the RFC. That said, I think most of the (includable) information in the section ought to be in other articles (e.g. ], ], ] and ]). I also consider the information that belongs elsewhere as the most encyclopedic (e.g. general information on WADA's stance on the use of technology) and therefore the more includable information. (In light of the description in the "Dispute overview" I must add that move =/= remove.)<br> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| The main reason for my neutrality to some inclusion of the French reactions in the discussed article is that I don't feel capable of interpreting ], specifically whether the controversy is "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority", or "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". If the section is included it should (for ]) probably be included that the unfounded claims were called out as violating the Olympic Spirit.<br>I won't participate in this DRN beyond this comment as the previous discussion was a massive time sink. Furthermore, it was overflowing with accusations of bias etc. and therefore far from enjoyable. ] (]) 17:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC) (Yes, my IP has changed since the previous discussion. I think all IP editors (at least all 85.# and 88.#) participating in the discussion were me.) | |||
| * {{User|Abo Yemen}} | |||
| * {{User|Javext}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==== Comments by (previously uninvolved) HiLo48 ==== | |||
| I'm confused. Did ] write an article as he/she says, or simply a new section for the already existing article ]? | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| I regard articles like ] as disaster areas. They inevitably attract lots of crap, largely comprising the personal whinges of editors with nothing better to do and no idea of ]. I have been waiting for the dust to settle and for most editors to forget about it, before I started to get rid of some of the real dross. This dispute, however, has delayed the arrival of that time. | |||
| ] | |||
| As for this dispute, it does seem to be about a very narrow, technical issue related far more to a particular sport than to the Olympics. My opinion matches that of ]. It should go. ] (]) 09:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| :Ah, I realise now that the answer to my initial question is that ] did not write an article, as he/she says, simply a new section for the already existing article. Having a major complaint made by someone who doesn't understand basic Misplaced Pages terminology somewhat confuses and weakens their case. ] (]) 03:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous ] | |||
| ::I can support the claim that Andromedean started, and has been editing, this (section) article. ] (]) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== |
==== Summary of dispute by Javext ==== | ||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| This '''again'''?!? ] and ] are previous attempts to get DRN to issue a ruling ] (]) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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". | |||
| ==== Comments by Andromedean ==== | |||
| For the record it was Sport & Politics who suggested the DRN should be opened not myself. I thought RfC --] (]) 06:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC) only lasted a month, and I assumed it was closed when the attempted removal of the article took place. | |||
| 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: | |||
| I'm unclear why you are raising these points Hasteur, when I already stated this in the opening, are you intending to be involved in this again? Please, remember my request.--] (]) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| -"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'" | |||
| ==== Comments by DRN volunteer {{user|czarkoff}} ==== | |||
| Two previous cases mentioned above were closed without hearing due to then-ongoing ]. Since the RfC is now archived, and at least two sides of the dispute are represented, the case will be opened 08:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC) or after all parties make their comments (whatever happens first). Parties are welcomed to summarize uninvolved editors' input at RfC if applicable. — ] (]•]) 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| -"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" | |||
| === Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please '''''do not''''' use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| -"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 | |||
| Per {{u|czarkoff}}, the case is now open. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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." | |||
| {{{!}} <!-- Template:Collapse --> class="navbox collapsible {{#if:||collapsed}}" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| {{!}}- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #CFC;" {{!}} <div style="font-size:112%;">From the RFC</div> | |||
| {{!}}- | |||
| {{!}} style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " {{!}} | |||
| <div style="font-size:112%;">* '''Keep/Include'''. The sources back this up as a controversy along the same lines as the compression swimsuits at the last Olympics. As a further comment, when editors add text that is, for the most part, sourced correctly, it is unecessarily hostile, confrontational, unproductive, and unhelpful to delete it on sight just because you disagree with its inclusion. When someone takes the time, and it is time consuming, to add sourced content to an article, help them, don't hector them. Misplaced Pages works best by collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. Not by revert warring, arguing, and criticizing. ] (]) 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (moved out of the RFC by ]) | |||
| * '''Comment''' doesnt appear to be a controversy related to the 2012 Summer Olympics and I dont see why it should be mentioned, but that also applies to some of the other trivia in the article as well. Might be worth a mention in an article related to the specific sport but not here. ] (]) 22:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' I echo MilborneOne. This is not an issue specific to these games, but pervades sport in general. With ]' "legs", this crosses the barrier between able-bodied olympics and paralympics too. The LZR episode, for example, was last year. The article is already much too long with material that isn't all that relevant, and I genuinely feel this belongs in the specific sport article if it should be anywhere at all. --] (]) 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I still disagree it's an Olympics issue ''per se''. Technological doping is important and one that pervades sport, with each sport having its particularities. Some of it just happened to blow during the Olympics. Timing is coincidental. --] (]) 15:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' inclusion. This talk page alone demonstrates the controversy. Tone down the language a bit from what's in the diff, I'd say (a bit of peacockery there in my opinion), but put it in. --] (]) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)</div> | |||
| |} | |||
| I would like to ask parties whether there are any references relating the last three paragraphs of the section (as it is now) with these particular games. I only see a direct connection between the event and the statement "All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code". Is there any published analysis of British technology compliance with the other mentioned rules and opinions? — ] (]•]) 19:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll answer this because this relates to important information placed in the wrong article, which was my main focus near the end of the discussion: No, hence and all my other contributions on that particular IP. ] (]) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| which seems to be prepared with the games in mind. There is a background to British cyclings historic compliance (or lack of) at the bottom of page one and two of --] (]) 22:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Andromedean, we are expected to avoid assessing others' minds; instead we are expected to interpret the written text the way we could avoid guessing the connections – this is the point of ]. That is: unless secondary source asserts violation of the rules, we neither state the violation, nor mention the rules. While obviously the controversy in question is verifiable (France24 is an excellent source for that), we can't go beyond the published asserted violations and published comments regarding them. — ] (]•]) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| -"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." | |||
| == Lorena Bernal == | |||
| -"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it." | |||
| {{DR case status|closed}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 347 --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Kerfuffler|08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive discussion prior to filing. See guidelines above. ] (]) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| Thank you for whoever reads this. ] (]) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| :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) | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Lorena Bernal}} | |||
| ::''"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."'' | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| ::. | |||
| * {{User|Kerfuffler}} | |||
| ::'''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. | |||
| * {{User| 95.16.191.188}} | |||
| ::-''' | |||
| * {{User| 66.186.69.50}} | |||
| ::''"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."'' | |||
| * {{User| 95.16.188.126}} | |||
| ::. | |||
| * {{User| Marcoplo78}} | |||
| ::'''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.''' | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| ::- | |||
| ::''"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 === | |||
| There has been a slow edit war for more than a year over this person's age/birthdate, eye color, height, weight, etc. I attempted to create a discussion of the age issue on the talk page four weeks ago, but there were no responses at all, and the slow edit war continues. | |||
| <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 moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| Note that there are around 20 distinct users who have participated in this mess over the last year. I am only including the 5 who have participated in the last 3 months. | |||
| 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| 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) | |||
| Tried to initiate discussion on the talk page, and also added a comment in the actual page mentioning the talk page discussion. No response. | |||
| === Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Help identify reliable sources of this information or other ways of resolving the dispute. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==== Opening comments by 95.16.191.188 ==== | |||
| :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) | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| ::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}} | |||
| ==== Opening comments by 66.186.69.50 ==== | |||
| Hello, let me begin by saying <sub>(Per ]: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Comment removed by DR/N volunteer, ])</sub> I have simply corrected misleading information in the stats of Lorena Bernal that what seems like many others have continuously reverted back to uncorrect untruths designed to make her look like a liar. The stats I inputted are the very same stats given by Ms.Lorena Bernal herself on her own personal website, as well as being stated upon many a reputable site, sites that are not as simply changed by people that dislike her. She is in fact 5'8" tall, Brunette with Blue-Green eyes, 90-76-96(although she had 2 babies recently, that may have changed since, as she has not restated her measurements, naturally) She was born May 12 of 1981, do the math, she was barely 18 in 1999 when she won Miss Spain. Look at all of her photos, her eye colour is the same in all, look at photos of her & her husband, he is slightly taller than her in all photos where she is not wearing heels as he stands at 5'9". MATH & SCIENCE DO NOT LIE. <sub>(Per ]: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Comment removed by DR/N volunteer, ])</sub> Contact PePe London, Freixenet or Miss World/Miss Spain CO. Ask around, scour the net, you will see. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| === First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| ''<sub>], you are encouraged to participate in this DR/N discussion, but please refrain from further personal attacks. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.--] (]) 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)</sub>'' | |||
| 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) | |||
| :What attacks? Come on. attacks. It was a question & a good one at that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{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) | |||
| ::I was just about to leave a note on your talkpage. The above edit was left unsigned under the opening comments for ] . Is this your registered account? If so, please sign in and comment with your registered account. If this was simply a mistake, please take care with your edits. Could you clarify this?--] (]) 10:54, 6 October 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) === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| == List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) == | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Marcoplo78 ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| {{DR case status|closed}} | |||
| === Lorena Bernal discussion === | |||
| {{drn filing editor|203.78.15.149|06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| {{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page in the past two weeks. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. More seriously, the filing editor does not appear to have been editing or discussing the article, at least not from their current IP address. If their IP address is shifting, they should be aware that it is very hard to engage in dispute resolution with a shifting IP address. The unregistered editor is strongly advised to ]. Resume discussion at the article talk page. ] (]) 15:08, 4 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. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * {{User|Globallycz}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| This occurred last month and only the 2024 segment and prior to that, there are numerous editors who improved its consistencies by giving only brief information. However, Globallycz come around November after joining Misplaced Pages in September" and then changed back to the previous standard (like stating age name, which is not a requirement, and "known as the <name of case> where case is instead put in the start of point instead). The attitude on his was not pleasant and used only mobile editing; whenever some users reverted the edit out of good faith, Globallycz stand firm and reversed it back, claiming the edits were wrong and challenged them, and even negatively comment the user on bad faith. While only limited discussions were held, Only one topic in the talk page was made and while it meant a suggested content improvement as a table form, only one reply, Globallycz, was made, instead strongly opposed it and even criticized the edits as well. We are bringing this topic as anonymous. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| ] and ] | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| Please take action against Globallycz due to his defiance and doesn't take it too kindly when other people reversed his edits. The editors are striving to make a standard similar to "List of major crimes in Japan" or "List of train robberies in the United States" for example. | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Globallycz ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| === List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) discussion === | |||
| <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> | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | {{DRN archive bottom}} | ||
| {{hatnote|The follow-up discussion was moved to ] thread on talk page counterpart of this page.}} | |||
| == |
== Habte Giyorgis Dinagde == | ||
| {{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|Traveler100|11:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Jpduke|03:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive discussion prior to filing at DR/N. See guidelines above. ] (]) 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | ||
| Line 758: | Line 1,056: | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | ||
| * {{pagelinks| |
* {{pagelinks|Habte Giyorgis Dinagde}} | ||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|Jpduke}} | ||
| * {{User| |
* {{User|Magherbin}} | ||
| * {{User|Masem}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <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, | |||
| A number of users have requested a photograph of a statue which is in a public place in Japan. Initially image was uploaded to commons and was rightly so removed as the photo is of artwork still under copyright. However Japan copyright rules does allow for non-commercial use. After myself and others advising of this on the talk page I decided to upload an image to Misplaced Pages. The image however as been removed from the article each time I have added it. As you can see from numerous discussions on the talk page some people believe that it is fine to use a ] image others believe it is not or are unsure and believe removal is the correct course of action. | |||
| 1. Claim that Habte Giyorgis fought for Hassan Enjamo: | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> | |||
| 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 | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| Someone who can give an authoritative interpretation on image copyright status for use on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Extensive Discussion in Talk page: | |||
| Posted Multiple Third Opinion requests spanning 4 weeks. I don't know how to link that. | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Oda Mari ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| ==== Opening comments by Masem ==== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> | |||
| 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. | |||
| === Hachikō discussion === | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Magherbin ==== | |||
| <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 === | |||
| <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> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:20, 7 January 2025
Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| 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 | |
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.
| 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.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
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:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Autism | In Progress | Oolong (t) | 18 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 11 hours | Oolong (t) | 26 minutes |
| Sri Lankan Vellalar | Closed | Kautilyapundit (t) | 16 days, 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours |
| Imran Khan | New | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 11 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | On hold | Abo Yemen (t) | 6 days, 20 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, | Abo Yemen (t) | 1 days, |
| List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) | Closed | 203.78.15.149 (t) | 3 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, |
| Habte Giyorgis Dinagde | New | Jpduke (t) | 1 days, 11 hours | None | n/a | Jpduke (t) | 1 days, 11 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 15:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
 | If 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
- Oolong (talk · contribs)
- Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk · contribs)
- Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk · contribs)
- HarmonyA8 (talk · contribs)
- TempusTacet (talk · contribs)
- WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
- FactOrOpinion (talk · contribs)
- 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs)
- GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs)
- Markworthen (talk · contribs)
- Urselius (talk · contribs)
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. "
- @Oolong@Robert McClenon I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):
- 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
- . 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 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)
- "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)
- 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)
Second statements by editors (Autism)
List of Perceived Relevant Discussions
- Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?
- Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk?
- Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
- Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice
- Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
- Talk:Autism#Brevity
- Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
- Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
- Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
- Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one conversation in here was due to at least one user not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" - a standardised way to refer to multiple authors such as in scientific or academic contexts).
- 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)
- Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
- Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
- Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
- Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong
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 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)
- 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:
- Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?
- Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk?
- Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Identity-first language for autistic people categories
- Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Disability terms
- Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
- Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice
- Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
- Talk:Autism#Brevity
- Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
- Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
- Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
- Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one tangent in here was due to some people not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" . It is a common way to refer to multiple authors in scientific journals, especially in journals using Vancouver style .)
- 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)
- Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
- Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
- Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
- Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request
- Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong
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:
- Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
- Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice
- Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
- Talk:Autism#Brevity
- Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
- Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
- Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
- Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al.
- Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication
- Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
- Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
- Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
- Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request
- Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong
- (edited to add:) Talk:Autism#Paradigm?
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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
. 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 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)
- 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)
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:
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: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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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)
- For the ICD and "diseases", I think we can give much better examples of non-disease medical conditions. Consider:
- ICD-10 Z34, normal pregnancy
- ICD-10 L64, male-pattern baldness
- ICD-10 E34.3, constitutional short stature
- ICD-10 Q85.2, any ordinary birth mark
- 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)
- Thanks, that’s quite right :) Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:27, 6 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 |
|---|
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 BoyFirst 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 discussionPlease 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)
References
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)
First statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)
|
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
- SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)
- WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs)
- Veldsenk (talk · contribs)
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?
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
- "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.- Volunteer Note - Is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard first, before any other content issues are discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a biography of a living person? If so, it might be answered more quickly at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
| Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
|
References
- "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.
- "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.
- "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.
- 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.
- "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.
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)
- Alright,
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)
- sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 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)
- 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)
- 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
- :
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)
- @Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 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: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 203.78.15.149 on 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
| Closed as premature. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page in the past two weeks. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. More seriously, the filing editor does not appear to have been editing or discussing the article, at least not from their current IP address. If their IP address is shifting, they should be aware that it is very hard to engage in dispute resolution with a shifting IP address. The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
| Closed 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 This occurred last month and only the 2024 segment and prior to that, there are numerous editors who improved its consistencies by giving only brief information. However, Globallycz come around November after joining Misplaced Pages in September" and then changed back to the previous standard (like stating age name, which is not a requirement, and "known as the <name of case> where case is instead put in the start of point instead). The attitude on his was not pleasant and used only mobile editing; whenever some users reverted the edit out of good faith, Globallycz stand firm and reversed it back, claiming the edits were wrong and challenged them, and even negatively comment the user on bad faith. While only limited discussions were held, Only one topic in the talk page was made and while it meant a suggested content improvement as a table form, only one reply, Globallycz, was made, instead strongly opposed it and even criticized the edits as well. We are bringing this topic as anonymous. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore#Need_some_help_List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(2020–present) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please take action against Globallycz due to his defiance and doesn't take it too kindly when other people reversed his edits. The editors are striving to make a standard similar to "List of major crimes in Japan" or "List of train robberies in the United States" for example. Summary of dispute by GloballyczPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
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.