Talk:Jonathan Mitchell (writer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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: [1]. Osbourne quote, page 159 ("solipsistic detachment"): [2]. 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)

Notability of subject

This subject arguably does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability for biography.

Wikipedia standards for notability for people state that the individual must have received coverage in multiple published secondary sources.

Sources cited for this article include:

Material uploaded on the subject's own blog; Newsweek article in which the subject was only one of many individuals discussed; 2008 public radio story conducted by a radio producer who is acquainted with the subject; NPR article on the subject's decision to donate his brain tissue to science on death (i.e. it was not specifically about the subject's life and achievements); a book written by the subject's sister Melanie Mitchell; a brief mention in a book about a more general subject; NY Magazine article in which the subject is one of many individuals quoted; LA Times article written by the subject; Spectator article written by the subject; BLog article written by the subject; Blog article that briefly cites the subject's opinions; A brief mention on a single page of a longer book; An article written by the subject in Autism Parenting Magazine; Blog opinion piece in the Huffington Post; A letter to the editor that happens to mention the subject; Ppodcast in which the subject is one of many individuals discussed; Article from the subject's blog

Out of 16 sources, 6 are written by the subject and one is from the subject's sister. Most other mentions are either opinion pieces, or the subject is merely one individual of many discussed in an article about a more general subject (i.e. different views about an autism cure, brain tissue donation). This does not suggest that the subject has received substantial attention in secondary sources. Wiki standards specifically state that trivial coverage of sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

The subject also does not meet the notability standards for creative professionals (writers). Their work has not been cited frequently, won significant critical attention, etc. Although some have argued that they are notable as a critic of neurodiversity, that is not reflected in objective measures such as citations or secondary source coverage. HistorianSRPK (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK

Thanks for that comprehension review. I've re-added the notability tag. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:64C6:7BB2:D963:2A7D (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

HistorianSRPK am a bit unclear here, are you suggest that sources need improving or the article needs to be deleted? Am assuming if the sources cannot be improved then there are good grounds for the deletion of the article. Chricon79 (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the poor quality of sources is a strong indicator that the subject does not mean notability requirements. If there are better sources available, proponents of this article's validity should present them. HistorianSRPK (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK

Am in agreement on the course of action to take to address this, I have noticed via the history logs that their are editors who disagree. Not sure if WP:RFC is needed at this juncture, though it is an option on the table. Chricon79 (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chricon79: @HistorianSRPK: Seriously? Maybe, there are too many sources, but Jonathan Mitchell is a very notable subject. According to Notability#General_notability_guideline, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The Newsweek article mainly focuses on him. Half of the NPR article is about his life in general. The book American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome covers his life in detail, where the author pays a visit to him in person. "Neurodiversity Proponents Strongly Object to Viewpoint Diversity" is written by a medical professional. And so on. Ylevental (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would note that Ylevental has a stated connection to the subject. His continued influence on this page is itself a cause for concern that violates Wiki guidelines.

Beyond that issue, it is true that the subject has received attention in some notable sources, although I do not think that one of the authors being a medical doctor is relevant. The fact remains that the overall quality of the sources cited remains quite poor, indicative of padding the sources in order to make the subject appear more important. The overall effect of such sources appears to suggest that Ylevental and the subject are using Wikipedia as a tool to promote their perspective. From "What Wikipedia is not": "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

This page fits many of the patterns of a single editor using Wikipedia as a soapbox. If the subject is notable, then this editor has done a poor job establishing this in an unbiased fashion. At the very least, this suggests to me that the article needs to be rewritten to focus on reputable sources only, without padding from the author's blog, opinion pieces, and other trivial mentions. HistorianSRPK (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HistorianSRPK

@GreenMeansGo: - please explain here how this doesn't prove that there is a notability issue. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me back when you decide to use only one account. GMG^talk 00:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I choose not to have an actual account. That's not a valid reason. I repeat - please explain here how this doesn't prove that there is a notability issue. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comments re GA:

1. It's absurd to say the subject is not notable, and it's not even worth arguing. There's sufficient press.
2. The real problem is NPOV and advocacy: there is a difference between presenting his views, and advocating for them.
3. One of the signs of advocacy is when the article tries to present a person's views on all related issues, rather than on those specific ones for which they are known.
4. So far from being a GA, it's an article in need of major revision. It's an example of how not to write articles like this.
5. I may try rewriting it, but I don't think a proper article will be of sufficient importance to be worth considering for GA.
6. I'd even say that an attempt at making this a GA is an example of advocacy DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I will attempt to remove the GA nomination. However, one editor spent about a day editing the entire article, so I thought that would have been good for a GA. Ylevental (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested edits to be made

Hello,

So I am sure that this page is being watched by some editors. Based on all the changes made yesterday, here are the ones I request:

• "He has been described as one of the most controversial voices in the autism blogosphere" should be changed to "He has been described by Erika Hayasaki as one of the most controversial voices in the autism blogosphere", since Erika Hayasaki was the author of the Newsweek piece

• "Mitchell's writing has been compared to the work of David Miedzianik" should be changed to "Mitchell's writing has been compared by the novelist Lawrence Osborne to the work of David Miedzianik", since Lawrence Osborne did a piece on Mitchell and made this comparison in the sources.

For the infobox:

• "| education =" should be changed to "| education = Psychology Degree", since he has a degree in Psychology, according to https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/04/170835708/shortage-of-brain-tissue-sets-autism-research-back
• "| alma_mater =" should be changed to "| alma_mater = UCLA", which is in the book American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, already cited in the references. However, it is on page 154 of this book.

Ylevental (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ylevental, I'll wait a few days to see if anyone objects to any of these. I am travelling for the next week and will be only intermittently available, but if someone else doesn't handle this before then, I will when I get back. If it hasn't been dealt with by the 4th, ping me again. --valereee (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Objection raised - the Newsweek comment that he is relying on is an editorial by the writer that is not backed up by the article content, in particular the claim "one of the most controversial voices". It is in of itself a controversial comment that requires a back up source. At worst there are quotes from others criticising Mitchell but the numbers are hardly worth the comment made. I have no objection to the second content edit. The first edit in the info box is controversial in that it doesn't say where the degree was studied, something I would have thought was essential so I object to that. I can't check the source of the second one but I'll leave it as it's not really controversial and not object to that. 2001:8003:5901:B400:20D3:BB84:40A:303E (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the proposed addition. We shouldn't be asking for evidence for every claim that a reliable source reports. CatPath (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The claims I am objecting to are controversial, and that's an important consideration in BLP, right? If he is one of the most controversial voices where are the numbers of reliable sources saying the same thing? We only have one person making the claim and that just doesn't cut the mustard - reliable source or not. Editorialising actually minimises the reliability of that specific source certainly for that claim. As far as the other one goes, if he really does have that degree why wasn't the place of study named? Didn't the writer of the NPR article find out? That's lazy reporting which in my opinion indicates that the subject may have lied to the reporter. I don't know for sure, but that's the point. We don't know, and until we do that's a controversial claim that shouldn't be added. 2001:8003:5901:B400:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's another source that says that Mitchell "has stirred deep controversy" by declaring, "I hate it. It's a horrible disability." [3] That being said, the claim that he is a controversial figure should be retained in the body of the article but perhaps removed from the lead to give the claim the proper weight. As for your other concern, how would someone holding a degree be a controversial claim? Are there reliable sources that claim that he's lying about his degree? CatPath (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is with the words "one of the most". I'm not disputing the presence of controversy in his views. Just the weight being given to it with those words. If those words were taken out, I would not object. The second one - the controversy is there is no place of study for the degree. I thought we were about accuracy. It doesn't need to be proven that he's lying. It has to be proven that he's telling the truth. Where there is no information, it being untrue is the default position given the heavy requirements of BLP's. At best, it's a claim only. If it was in the body of the article, I would not object to it being noted as a claim. But it being fact is unproven due to the lack of provider so it can't be put in the infobox. 2001:8003:5901:B400:75BC:23B9:1F37:2004 (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with taking "one of the most" out. However, the degree should remain. As strange as it sounds, we are more about verifiability than accuracy. Assertions are verified by citing reliable sources. NPR is certainly a reliable source. The source doesn't say that he "claims" to have a psychology degree - it says, "He has a degree in psychology." To omit his degree would be an excessively strict application of the BLP requirements. CatPath (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I decided to do a search to see if I could find any indication of where he did the degree. I found one, but I suspect it can't be used because of the combination of it being a blog and because there's a self publication issue. Have a look. It says UCLA, and notes it was "just". Like I said, we probably can't use it but it's sheer presence means I guess I withdraw that particular objection. Thanks for the change to fix the other objection. 2001:8003:5901:B400:7009:2DF2:3E9D:1E4F (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned before, the fact that he got his degree at UCLA is also formally cited in the book American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, on page 154. Ylevental (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like no one is objecting to these requests, is that correct:

• "Mitchell's writing has been compared to the work of David Miedzianik" should be changed to "Mitchell's writing has been compared by the novelist Lawrence Osborne to the work of David Miedzianik", since Lawrence Osborne did a piece on Mitchell and made this comparison in the sources. Ylevental can you provide that source?
• "| alma_mater =" should be changed to "| alma_mater = UCLA", which is in the book American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, already cited in the references. However, it is on page 154 of this book.

--valereee (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think anyone is objecting. The source from the comparison to Miedzianik is from Osborne, Lawrence (2007). American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 154-155, 161. ISBN 9780387218076.

Two agree-upon edits done. Please start a new section for future requests. --valereee (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested Edits to be Made (Part 2)

Key Principle to Keep in Mind:

The entire article must be edited to fulfill the following guideline: Article must focus only on specific issues for which Jonathan Mitchell is known, and must not present his views on all related issues. No WP:COI bias.

Overall, I would like the {{advert|date=March 2019}} and {{COI|date=March 2019}} tag to be removed.

Why? So you can nominate it for a featured article again or do something else to promote it? You can't promote here! This isn't your personal website you know! 103.107.131.19 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I just want the article to be cleared up. Ylevental (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So you can promote it! He's right! This isn't your personal website! 1.124.111.158 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert people's comment, Ylevental. 124.246.7.57 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what you do, actually. Ylevental (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No you have been doing it, but now you have chosen to leave it as you realised you could get yourself into trouble. Never do it again. 1.136.104.88 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

More requested edits:

I am not sure how to properly cite <ref name="Osborne">{{cite book |last1=Osborne |first1=Lawrence |title=American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome |date=2007 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=9780387218076 |pages=114–115, 155, 158–159 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5bPdBgAAQBAJ |accessdate=19 February 2019 |language=en}}</ref>

I notice there is <ref name="Osborne" />{{rp|154}} and <ref name="Osborne" />{{rp|154-155}} in the source code. However, the "Osborne" source under "References" has the pages listed as pages=114–115, 155, 158–159. Will you include all the pages in the source, or cite them individually as reference pages?

Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-0: p. 154

Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-1: p. 157-158

Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-2: p. 155

Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-3: p. 161

Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#cite_ref-Osborne_2-4: p. 154-155

Ylevental (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. The first step in removing the tags will be removing the promotionalism. For example, his opinions on various autism-related subjects. A few of these are central to what he is known for, a few are miscellaneous. Remove the miscellaneous. I'll be back in a week or so and do it myself if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: I found an editor that has no connection to Jonathan Mitchell whatsoever and is willing to do it, so I don't think you will have to do it, but if I need to request you eventually, I will let you know. Ylevental (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Tag removal request

Information to be removed: Edits done on the article

Explanation of the issue: I have made edits to the page. I have removed content that read like an advertisement in the whole article and also in the section on crticism. Further, I have removed incorrect citations like self-published blogs, dead links and inappropriate external links. I have also re-arranged the text and re-named the sections to rightly speak about the content. I am open to make further edits to the page to remove obscure content, if suggested.

I would request you to please remove the advert tag on the page. Thanks.

TP495 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a few more edits:

The sentence "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff talks about his life experience with Asperger syndrome, an autism-spectrum disorder." should be changed to "His novel, The Mu Rhythm Bluff, is about a 49-year-old autistic man who undergoes transcranial magnetic stimulation in an attempt to tone down his autism."

The sentence "Since 2010, Mitchell has also been a part of mirror neurons discussion with UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni." should be changed to Since 2010, Mitchell has been discussing questions about mirror neurons with UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni."

In the references, the section "pp. 114–115, 155, 158–159", should be changed to "p. 161"

The sentence segment "The School of Hard Knocks and twenty-five short stories" should be changed to "The School of Hard Knocks, and has also written twenty-five short stories" Ylevental (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 20-MAY-2019

• The edit request system is not to sanction edits which have already been made, but rather, to suggest edits which need to be accomplished.
• Changing items such as incorrect page numbers seems to be within the purview of acceptable changes COI editors are allowed to make.
• To remove the advert template, the COI editor is asked to speak with the editor who originally placed the template. Since they placed it, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  20:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested Edits to be Made (Part 3)

Just a few more edits:

The sentence "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff talks about his life experience with Asperger syndrome, an autism-spectrum disorder." should be changed to "His novel The Mu Rhythm Bluff is about a 49-year-old autistic man who undergoes transcranial magnetic stimulation in an attempt to treat his autism."

The sentence "Since 2010, Mitchell has also been a part of mirror neurons discussion with UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni." should be changed to "Since 2010, Mitchell has been asking UCLA neurologist Marco Iacoboni questions about mirror neurons by email."

The sentence segment "The School of Hard Knocks and twenty-five short stories" should be changed to "The School of Hard Knocks, and has also written twenty-five short stories" Ylevental (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Done Heepman1997 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Ylevental (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for Removal of Published Work Section

According to Jonathan Mitchell he is not a published author; https://corticalchauvinism.com/2016/10/03/jonathan-mitchell-autisms-gadfly/

There is no Google link to School of Hard Knocks ever being released or available for purchase. Even the Citations for School of Hard Knocks, the NPR interview, states Jonathan Mitchell was writing, not had written School of Hard Knocks.

Mu Rhythm Bluff is a self published title.

Mattevansc3 (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-published is still published, and The School of Hard Knocks is mentioned in the audio clip. I'm busy tonight, but I will give more cited details tomorrow. Ylevental (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You would have to listen to the entire audio clip to find mention of The School of Hard Knocks, but Mitchell confirms it in writing on his website. If you want to add it as a citation, this is the citation:

<ref name="360Confirmation">{{cite web |last1=Mitchell |first1=Jonathan |title=Jonathan Mitchell's Story Page |url=http://www.jonathans-stories.com/news.html |website=www.jonathans-stories.com |accessdate=12 June 2019}}</ref>.

I think the School of Hard Knocks is the only unpublished one, but the section should definitely stay. Ylevental (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I did listen to the whole clip. It states he was writing, present tense, not he had written school of hard knocks. As per my original link Jonathan Mitchell confirms that none of his short stories or books were published.

You've also been an editor long enough to know you can't just use a primary source to make that claim. You will need to provide a reliable, 3rd party source to confirm he has published those works.

One self published book does not warrant a dedicated section.

Mattevansc3 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

His stories are published on his website, and the interview is from 2008, before he wrote The Mu Rhythm Bluff. The section can still be kept, but I guess the title should be changed to "Written works", because they aren't necessarily published. In American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome, p. 153, Mitchell says "I've been writing for seven years myself. I have 75,000 words of a novel. It's about an abusive special education school. It's called The School of Hard Knocks." Also, in this books, his stories are mentioned from p. 153 to p. 157.

Also, primary sources are sometimes okay. See WP:USEPRIMARY Ylevental (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

More details for an editor with no COI to possibly add.

Today, a book titled Autism Updated by Dr. Manuel Casanova was released, that contains a profile of Jonathan Mitchell from pages 697-700. Here are the details:

• Mitchell attended psychoanalysis as a child (p. 697)
• Mitchell retired at 51 years old and tried to get disability but was unsuccessful after a 4.5 year battle. (p. 700)

I added the book reference to the article myself. Ylevental (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Done with that 139.60.123.102 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)