Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:18, 1 March 2016

Jonathan Mitchell (writer) is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Ylevental (talk) at 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

	Jonathan Mitchell (writer) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 27, 2005 Articles for deletion Deleted December 29, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 5, 2016 Articles for deletion Kept January 7, 2016 Peer review Not reviewed January 9, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 9, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Autism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. ylevental (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (acquaintance online)

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Conflict of Interest

The creator of this article is User:Ylevental. A clear COI issue. I would nominate this for deletion on notability grounds but I can't as an IP. 1.152.96.233 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the COI issue. But the individual is certainly notable. The reference lists three independent secondary sources that talks about him. I don't see the need for the notability banner. CatPath (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I now have an account and I have retagged this page and warned Ylevental about his COI. Any future edits from him should be reversed on sight - unless there is another procedure that needs to be followed. KrazyKlimber (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

KrazyKlimber Who are you?? What makes you think that? Please stick to Misplaced Pages guidelines in editing this article. Ylevental (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing this page per WP:COI please. KrazyKlimber (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know what you're talking about. Even if you were right, it's not illegal but discouraged. "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Ylevental (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You do know what I'm talking about, and you are avoiding it. I have reported you to the COI notice board for your conduct to be investigated. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ylevental, do you have any relationship with Jonathan Mitchell to declare, per WP:DCOI? CatPath (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I will say I am an acquaintance of his. I will add the declaration if it's necessary. Ylevental (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you can't edit the article without clearance from this talk page. This also means that I don't need to provide any further evidence on the COI noticeboard. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No policy says that Ylevental can't edit the article without clearance from this talk page. People with a COI are discouraged from directly editing the article, not banned from editing the article. -- GB fan 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Hatred of Autism"

Is there an instance of him saying that he 'hates autism'? That seems very NPOV to me, but I don't know if that's what he actually said or not. --Tarage (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Look in the Newsweek article that's cited. He says, "I hate it...It’s a horrible disability. I wish there were a cure." CatPath (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Retracting my concern then. --Tarage (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article mentions controversy, but is lacking in the other side as it relates directly or indirectly to the subject. This missing information may be why the application for Featured Article failed. If there is controversy then there has to be sources demonstrating this in order to neutralise this article and present the complete picture of the subject. Also on my last edit I removed a blog, and I query the presence in the article of another blog which I didn't remove because it was the sole source of an entire paragraph (Manuel Casanova's). Unless there's another source I think that entire paragraph should be removed. Thoughts are appreciated. 101.182.100.189 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph describing Mitchell's critique of NeuroTribes is poorly sourced. A neutral third-party source is needed to demonstrate that Mitchell's opinion of the book is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Otherwise, the paragraph should be removed. CatPath (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IP is indefinitely blocked User:KrazyKlimber. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality concern is still valid. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Tagged two parts that need verification. Who says he's "controversial"? Why? Also removed a blog as that is never accepted as a source. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Good work on the clean up - the Neurotribes review had to go as it didn't have a source (and if it did have one the other reviews of the book needed to be referenced for neutrality), but the work claim needs a third party verification to confirm that was actually the reason. I've also added a few more tags - the "Who?" tag is very important in the neutrality issue. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: There are still some neutrality issues surrounding the points of fact I have tagged. We need to discuss this is order to gain the balance we need and then perhaps this could be a candidate for a good article. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Please go do something else - you appear to be a bit obsessed with this article and are picking at trivial things. I believe you are probably a blocked user as well. Really - let it go. I will not be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sorry, but you need to explain the reasons for your disagreement. There is no obsession and the points are not trivial. They go to balance. Controversy is present and yet it is not given it's due going against WP:UNDUE. This is an important article that needs to be presented in a balanced manner, and at present I believe it is not. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@203.17.215.22, each sentence you tagged is supported by the citation that appears at the end of the sentence that follows. This includes the claim that Mitchell is "controversial." CatPath (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see the point in including the cleanup tags. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@CatPath: Okay you're right about the last two, but not the rest - unless the sentence is changed (I'm talking the the "who" tag and the work claim) to make it clear that someone is making the claim rather than it is actual proven fact. If you see what I am saying there. As it stands the two claims are put as fact without back up. That should answer Ninja's query 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, as I am about to depart the library it would be best to shut this off, so I've opted for neutralising the comments instead of demanding sources for the claims. I have as a result removed the neutrality tag. However as an admitted COI subject (Ylevental) has been substantively editing this article recently (as in within the last month or so) the COI tag should stay. If it shouldn't I would like to know why this would be the case. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't deal in proven fact. We just report what reliable sources have said. See WP:ALLEGED. Unless the source expresses doubt, we can't express doubt. What you've done is not to make the article neutral but to slant it toward a POV that casts doubt. And, no, COI tags do not stay indefinitely. Once the article is made neutral, it is removed, as the template itself instructs: "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

I've requested semi-page protection. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Alreadyw as, I think, but now also has stable version protection. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Concern

I checked Google Books for the book American Normal : The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, and I am unable to find the quotes attributed to Jonathan Mitchell despite a search. His name was mentioned, but certainly there was nothing there about Temple Grandin nor the Osbourne quote attributed. A thorough verification is recommended, or I suggest the quotes be removed as at worst lies and at best misunderstandings. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you expect? It was Ylevental socking - again. It should be reverted under WP:SOCK. I'd start an SPI but it would include private info. How do I get around that one? 1.129.97.18 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I found the passages in Google Books. Mitchell's views on Temple Grandin, page 155: . Osbourne quote, page 159 ("solipsistic detachment"): . According to the index of the book, "twiddling" as part of Mitchell's creative process is described on pp. 157-158, but someone with access to a hard copy should confirm because Google Books does not offer access to those pages. CatPath (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how I missed those. Oh well. Thank you for that confirmation. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Autism articles
• Low-importance Autism articles
• WikiProject Autism articles
• Articles with connected contributors