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 If you cannot, then we do not quote blogs quoting online comments on blogs in order to include information on living persons.  G M G  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)
 * A blog and a wikia are not reliable sources, and writing a blog does not make you notable. See w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and w:Wikipedia:Notability. If you want to add balance, then find balance in reliable sources.  G M G  talk  11:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The website is not a blog. It is an independent source. Prove that it is not reliable. Notability is not relevant - or if it is then the other quotes that were already there fail the same test; solution - delete the article. TLPG (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The website says "Phil's World Blog Lobby". It is written as a blog, because it is a blog. It is at best a personal website, not affiliated with any organization of any note, and not written by an individual of any note, in other words, a blog. If you want the quotes to stay, then you need to find them in reliable secondary sources. If you cannot, then the quotes will be removed.  G M G  talk  20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blog Lobby. Not a blog. A blog Lobby. Not affiliated with any organisation of note? Really?. Not written by an individual of any note? Really?. The site is a reliable source. It links to the original comments in a clear case of oversight (required in a reliable source) as an example. But it doesn't matter. A solution has been found below. TLPG (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mr Gluyas is also a blogger" ... Yes, thank you for providing a reliable source that says exactly what I was saying.  G M G  talk  13:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You see the problem with citing blogs and things like wikia, is that I could start my own blog and say pretty much whatever I want. I could then start a wikia page citing my blog, since wikias generally have essentially no standard for sourcing. I could then come to Wikipedia or Wikiquote, and add content citing the wikia and the blog that I myself created.
 * Obviously you can see how, if I were to do such a thing, the information would be completely non-independent, and totally unreliable. I would also have a massive conflict of interest in not only promoting my own viewpoints but promoting my own blog in the process. The possibility of something like that happening is precisely why we do not allow these type of sources to be used here. It is also why we certainly do not allow them for contentious content about living persons, since that could expose both the Wikimedia Foundation, and the individual editor to legal jeopardy in a libel lawsuit, and these things have certainly happened before. So this is a standard that protects not only the integrity of our content, but also personally protects the Foundation as well as individual contributors.  G M G  talk  16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are biased against my contribution originally and refuse to note that the website engages in oversight, so it would not be just an individual opinion, but rather a verified statement. Note that the quotes are linked to their original location. Also, just because "Mr Gluyas is also a blogger" is not proof. It's a convenient interpretation on your part. It doesn't mean for instance that the whole site is a blog. The page referenced is an entry port - or "lobby" as I previously noted.
 * But I'm not going to argue with you. The matter has a solution and I'm about to enact it now - redirecting this article to the Autism article and adding the quotes that you don't object to only. As Spartacus said, it provides the balance so I don't need to add the quotes I added here. TLPG (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. User Ylevental has a COI with the subject, and this is a vanity article. See the talk page on Jonathan on Wikipedia for proof.
 * Ah yes, the history of the English Wikipedia article. I see there was also a blocked IP there from Telstra Internet in Australia, as you are. And a related account, KrazyKlimber, preoccupied with having the article deleted, who was also involved in sockpuppetry. That is a strange coincidence. Thank you for pointing it out.  G M G  talk  00:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh do please point me to where vanity was mentioned over there as an issue. This should be fun. 1.152.104.83 02:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So have we abandoned all pretense that this can be defended according to policy?  G M G  talk  03:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You just did and then back flipped into a black hole.... Policy = Vanity on WQ not permitted. COI confirmed. What else do you want, a biscuit? 1.152.104.83 03:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So yes.  G M G  talk  04:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My point - over your head. 1.152.104.83 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So I saw this rather childish carry on (by the IP) and felt the need to create an account to offer an alternative. A redirect to Autism, seeing as this person Jonathan Mitchell is talking about it. He would be on an equal footing with the others and I would suggest provides the very balance TLPG is looking for without going to the degrees he seems to wish to. Of interest, that user same appears to carry something of a COI as much as the creator of this article does, for a different reason of course. What say we all? Redirect and add material there? Spartacus6000 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are you calling childish? I say No. It gets deleted. No vanity here, at all. 1.152.104.83 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I say YES!! I had no idea there was an article for Autism! I do however take issue with the idea that I have a COI with Mitchell. He's no friend of mine! Oh and to the IP - make like a tree and leave. You're a gadfly here. TLPG (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now boldly redirected this article to Autism after adding the original quotes but not the ones I added for the reasons Spartacus pointed out. In fact, the balance appears to be the other way now so I'll go and look for some quotes about Autism from others who have treated it with contempt (I'm thinking Jenny McCarthy and Robert Kennedy Jr at present - need to check and make sure others have an article on Wikipedia). This however may take awhile. TLPG (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop insulting me, TLPG! Those quotes GO! 1.152.107.120 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They stay. You're vandalising WQ with that. TLPG (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They are vanity quotes! They GO! 1.152.107.120 02:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They were not added by the subject so they are not vanity quotes. In the Autism article they were added by me. See what I said above. Now knock it off before you get blocked. TLPG (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, TLPG, and a wise move. But please note that COI doesn't just apply to friends. It applies to enemies also. GreenMeansGo had a valid point about the bias of the source of the quotes you were using, reliable per your point or otherwise. Bias against is just as applicable as bias for. With this in mind it would be best to seek sources for your proposed additions from mainstream media outlets rather than minor localities. Spartacus6000 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, okay re your COI point - but I for one don't have a personal relationship with Mitchell whereas the article creator does. Just to make that point. Way ahead of you on the others as you are about to see with one link in particular. The other two I'm not of but as they are well known as AFAIK that should be a pass as well. I'm adding one from someone who should be there (Ari Ne'eman) and two for counter balance as the Mitchell comments are the only negative ones there (Jenny McCarthy and Robert Kennedy Jr). TLPG (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How long do you plan on arguing with yourself?  G M G  talk  02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I formally ask that you withdraw that unsubstantiated allegation. TLPG (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)