Talk:Jonathan Mitchell

Disorderly removal of content...

Several IPs had been removing seven officially-cited quotes from Autism Gadfly stating the source was not verifiable, but the source is Mitchell's own blog. What more official do these IPs want? WikiLubber (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP is from the one location and provider so it is one person. And it is the article creator who is not using his account to avoid detection. It's a choice. Either the quotes stay, or all of the quotes (not just the ones being removed by the IP's) go in which case the article should be deleted. The quotes being removed provide balance and show that Mitchell is not the angel being promoted. The IP is trying to prevent that out of sheer bias. TLPG (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute discussion

Now that the page has been protected for two weeks, the IP should now prove how the quotes don't belong. For the record the first four points of the seven are fulfilled. I believe an attempt has been made by the article creator to fulfill the fifth point, but my additions fulfill that as well if so. Six and seven are not fulfilled, but I think the limits on quotes don't apply here. But for this reason at the moment WQ:NQUOTE is not applicable. So now the floor belongs to the IP. TLPG (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• From my comment at WQ:AN, because apparently it's important that I copy and paste it here:

The philgluyas.com site appears to be simply "some blog" by "some dude" dedicated to ranting about how this guy he doesn't like is a bitch, a coward, and an idiot. That's not a secondary source for our purposes and not at all the type of source we ought to be using for contentious material about living persons, or really for any reason whatsoever. Moreover, per WQ:NQUOTE, we specifically should not be including content from blogs and comments on online forums, when all these appear to be are online comments from a blog posted on another blog.

Moreover, from the wording of WQ:QLP, quotes regarding living persons should be taken from independent secondary sources. An attack blog is not an independent secondary source. It's a blog, and an attack site besides. If you can show where these have been quoted in actual reliable sources, then they should stay. If you cannot, then we do not quote blogs quoting online comments on blogs in order to include information on living persons. GMG^talk 19:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when were secondary sources critical of a person not allowed under the guise of an "attack blog" (the page clearly says it is a reply blog) so it appears you're not being very neutral on the matter. Note the following from the Wikipedia article on Mitchell; Several other autism bloggers criticize or insult Mitchell based on his pro-cure stance. When Newsweek announced that they would profile Mitchell, his critics emailed the journalist, urging her not to write about him. Mitchell has claimed to face insults and outright hostility from members of the neurodiversity movement, who have compared him to a "Jew that sympathized with Nazis". That's from here. So by default said critics are notable, no matter where or how they present themselves. Also they are independent of the subject (that's what independent means in sourcing), so your other claim also fails. Ignoring blogs seems to me to be a biased view, certainly in this case. For the record (probably not acceptable) the same quotes also appear here. Now granted I added them and as it's a Wikia it's probably not acceptable like I said - but the whole point is that we need balance. Mitchell is not an angel as Ylevental has tried to make him out to be with the article creation. He's a self confessed gadfly (see the name of his blog) and it's not appropriate to ignore his behaviour out of convenience. The quotes I added here provide that balance. For this reason, the WP rule IAR should be applied. TLPG (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)