Talk:Jonathan Mitchell

KIA thread
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3yy4i2/offtopic_could_some_of_you_ethically_analyze/ 20:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And https://archive.is/7dMaz:
 * 20:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 20:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note
Much of this page was written User:Yuvle, who is in all likelihood the same person as on Wikipedia, where he has stated that "I am an acquaintance of his".

He seems to be going around the internet on some sort of quest against this guy (see this, this, this).

We don't have a conflict of interest policy on RW (nor should we), and the page looks okay at a very quick glance, but someone should probably do a review of this page just to be sure we're not serving as a platform for a hitpiece (BLP and all). Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. 02:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tone
Emm... I am uncertain if giving the current tone on this page may be beneficial here. I think some of the information is a bit jogged up.

The tone can be critique by sourcing; while: "Neurodiversity does not advocate for all autistics equally.[9] The neurodiversity claims do not assert for equal social effectiveness, but rather that autistics can be socially effective if society changes to accommodate their differences" in practice tries to counter Mitchell it is not strongly stated and could accidental be misread as "neurodiverse advocates not caring for certain autistics" as oppose to "neurodiverse campaigns with diverse approaches." We need to tone the section... a bit better. It could also use more examples from the source 9, to make the section stronger.

Additionally there is the issue of tone when the article notes Mitchell's citing of Thomas Sowell but in a tone of neutrality that could pass mistakenly for a causal reader of this site. The causal is not going to necessary look at the reference; we need to make note of Sowell's unqualified status when it comes to psychology on the section proper. We need to think about how the audience will browse.

I suggest we do a review to ensure this presented the needed information well. Some additional wording and we might be able to present the article more... strongly, especially in the critiques. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk)Mitchell never states homosexuality is a disability in his article. The original article - http://autismgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-you-shouldnt-buy-neurotribes.html, This page should cite right and be more in line with wikipedia. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 85.167.125.197 / talk
 * Imputation says otherwise. To prove it, read the blog entry here that shows real intolerance and understanding of homosexuality. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:786E:BC61:3925:82E8 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mitchell doesn't promote alternative medicine
Neurodiversity movement ideas don't have a consensus among the scientific community, and are political at best. Also, Mitchell is against pseudo-scientific cures. Therefore, this article should be removed from the categories: "alternative medicine", "alternative medicine promoters", "autism woo" and "mental health woo". Samanto Hermes (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Samanto Hermes
 * There is no such thing as a non-pseudoscientific autism cure. Some crackpots claim that they have invented one or that they are developing one, but the technology isn't just nowhere there. --2001:999:40:3F76:481:11E9:3C79:FDC0 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That homosexuality part
This is a direct quote from Mitchell's alleged statement that homosexuality would be a disability: "I don't know how disability has ever been a part of Silberman's human experience, unless he believes that his homosexuality was some sort of social disability prior to 1974 before the american psychiatric association removed it from the DSM when he was seventeen." It would be extreme stretch at best to conclude from the quoted sentence that Mitchell sees homosexuality as a disability. That is the only part that referenced homosexuality in his blog post that was used as a reference. Crackpot curebies deserve to be criticized fiercely, but it is better done by staying in truth. --2001:999:40:3F76:A56C:D00B:E55E:9F0A (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my earlier reversions of your removal, you are correct. 13:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, though the way all the removals you did revert were done by someone else, unless the revert made by 2001:8003:5022:5e01:786e:bc61:3925:82e8 was yours. --2001:999:40:3F76:A56C:D00B:E55E:9F0A (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that BoN wasn't mine. And I was still incorrect. Admitting such is the correct course of action. 14:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)