Latest revision as of 02:03, 4 January 2025

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Autism

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oolong (talk · contribs)
• Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk · contribs)
• Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk · contribs)
• HarmonyA8 (talk · contribs)
• TempusTacet (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• FactOrOpinion (talk · contribs)
• 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs)
• GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs)
• Markworthen (talk · contribs)
• Urselius (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.

On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.

Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.

This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.

A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Autism Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions] Related: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов

The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.

This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders). This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references.

Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.

In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.

While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.

Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan

Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.

There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.

My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8

Summary of dispute by TempusTacet

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oolong, let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the #First statements by editors (Autism) section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the Misplaced Pages:Edit requests process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use Template:Text diff if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph.

(I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion

The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.

Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0

Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo

Autism discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)

I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;

• Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
• Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it.
• Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
• Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
• Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.

In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).

I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?

I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.

Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.

I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is Autism and Scientism (published in the Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal) and Autism, Misplaced Pages and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Autism)

I asked for specific statements of how the lede section should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read Be Specific at DRN. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of reliability describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the lede section should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by reliable sources, and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by medically reliable sources. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the medically reliable standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary standard of reliable sourcing.

If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the lede section. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the lede section, and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised lede section. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues.

I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as First statements by editors (Autism), because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic talk page guidelines are met.

After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the lede section, I will know better whether DRN is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Robert McClenon! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years.

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов has has said that he won't "have the time to consistently respond within 48 hours. Hopefully that is not a strict requirement" - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there?

I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Misplaced Pages guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... Oolong (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oolong@Robert McClenon I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):

" Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. "

2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Autism)

1. what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same

The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field.

Let's take the opening paragraph.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; deficits in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context.

I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted.

Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted:

The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common signs include unusual responses to sensory stimuli.

Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. Condition is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of disorder, although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent deficits in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see double empathy problem); the difficulties, however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term symptom to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics.

I recently edited the third paragraph simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that administrators' noticeboard for incidents may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues.

The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for applied behavior analysis

Above entered by Oolong

Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change.

Classification goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both diagnosis and signs and symptoms.

We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals.

Possible causes should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise epidemiology.

Management is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the gender dysphoria entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around access: access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on.

Prognosis probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten.

History and especially society and culture probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article.

Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough?

--Oolong (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. . doi:10.1177/1362361315588200 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134030/. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Second statement by moderator (Autism)

My explanation about source reliability is my own interpretation, based on the principle to use common sense. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion.

The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses.

The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the lede. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the lede paragraph.

In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement DRN Rule A.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The provision about responding within 48 hours is in DRN Rule A, which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Hi there, I have a question following your third statement. I would like to clarify the issues with the proposed lede change, and with the interpretations of "models", but I'm unsure as to where I should write this out here and if this is necessary to do at the moment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Respected editor, I have noticed a miscommunication. Although I could not read the rules and formats of dispute resolution; and also did not took part in the dispute resolution due to mental health issues, I want to notify that since some of my talk page comments have been marked as relevant by various editors; I plea for forgiveness regarding unintended miscommunication(s). I have just discovered at least two editors have wrote regarding "at least one user not being familiar" (probably I am the intended user) "not knowing" the use of "et al". But this is totally a miscommunication mainly originating from my side.

I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic.

I know, some of my conversation was not nice, including Talk:Autism#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213134300-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241213132400 or me venting out the stresses on several place such as Talk:Autism rights movement#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900-Ongoing dispute in the Misplaced Pages page on Autism, attentions needed , which was suspected or condemned as canvassing Talk:Autism rights movement#c-Pinecone23-20241217174100-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900 . I apologize for all these (and if any other) miscommunication, and I realize that the nature of this topic is so stressful for me that it would be better for me to stay off from this discussion by all and every means.

I ask for forgiveness to the every respected editors. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to ask in this rather odd place, but something seems to have gone wrong with this page - when I click 'edit' on any of the relevant sections, it goes to either edit the entire page, or a different, unrelated section (and either way, the visual editor isn't available).

I assume something has gone weird with the markup somewhere, but I have no idea how to diagnose problems of this type! Oolong (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Try a "hard refresh" (⌘+⇧ Shift+R on a Mac; I don't know what the equivalent is on Windows). If that doesn't work, drop by my talk page with a link to the section you want to click the button in, and then tell me which section actually opens for you, and what kind of a computer you're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R on everything else. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Autism)

List of Perceived Relevant Discussions

• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?
• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk?
• Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
• Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice
• Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
• Talk:Autism#Brevity
• Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
• Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
• Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
• Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one conversation in here was due to at least one user not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" - a standardised way to refer to multiple authors such as in scientific or academic contexts).

I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
• Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
• Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
• Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong

To my knowledge, the relevant discussions have not occurred outside of the article's talk page.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, you are perfectly correct. My apologies. More accurate to say that the discussion about the use of et al was an irrelevant and separate issue to the topics here, and was due to a miscommunication rather than you being unfamiliar with the term. I would forgive you but I don't think you've done anything wrong here at all! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I ask for forgiveness from all the respected editors for this very unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Autism)

Please read DRN Rule G. This is the new set of rules for this mediation.

Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it.

In the proposed lede by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads:

Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments.

That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is verifiable because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice.

I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material.

Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk)

Third statements by editors (Autism)

I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Misplaced Pages article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted.

I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Misplaced Pages (Deafness) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. Urselius (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

List of discussions from WhatamIdoing

I think the present dispute started about two months ago:

• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?
• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk?
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Identity-first language for autistic people categories
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Disability terms
• Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
• Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice
• Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
• Talk:Autism#Brevity
• Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
• Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
• Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
• Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one tangent in here was due to some people not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" . It is a common way to refer to multiple authors in scientific journals, especially in journals using Vancouver style .)

I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
• Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
• Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
• Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request
• Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong

As far as I know, most of the disputed edits and discussions are at this one article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing ::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I ask for all editors' forgiveness on this unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI, please do not worry. I added this note so that Robert would know that it was a perfectly innocent and unimportant thing, so he would focus on the other (non-tangential) comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Response and list of discussions from FactOrOpinion

Since you (Robert McClenon) have posted a "Third statement by moderator," I'm guessing that I should respond in this "Third statements by editors" section, even though I never posted anything in the First or Second statements sections. I've read DRN G and agree to it. As I noted earlier, I haven't been involved for that long. I haven't read any of the archived discussions. I have only read comments on the current talk page, though not all of them, and I responded in even fewer sections. My list:

• Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
• Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice
• Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
• Talk:Autism#Brevity
• Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
• Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
• Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
• Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al.
• Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication
• Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
• Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
• Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
• Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request
• Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong
• (edited to add:) Talk:Autism#Paradigm?

FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I made I talk page topic where I complained about "symptoms" being in the lead, but because I'm on phone and it's allmost 3:00 ill find it later. Anthony2106 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Autism)

At this point, I want to clarify the overall approach that we are taking or will take. First, is the main issue the overall viewpoint with which autism is discussed? The current article discusses autism almost entirely as a medical condition. Is the main issue that some editors think that the article needs an overall rework to state that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a medical condition or disorder, and that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a human condition or a neurotype. Is that the main issue? If my understanding is correct, then I agree, because the neutral point of view is to describe the different views of different reliable sources. If that is the main issue, do we have at least rough consensus that the article should be revised accordingly? If there is a rough consensus that the article should be reworked in that way, then we need to rewrite the lede section first, and then to rework the rest of the article to be consistent with and expand on the lede. If there is disagreement with that approach, then a Request for Comments will be needed to formalize the change in viewpoint, but I will want the RFC to provide a revised lede, rather than just a statement of principle. So we need to start work on rewriting of the lede if we agree that the article should describe the multiple viewpoints, of which the medical model is one.

So I will restate my first question, which is whether our objective is to revise the perspective of the article to describe multiple viewpoints. Please at least answer yes or no. If you answer no, please state what you think we should be doing to improve the article (or to leave it alone).

If we have at least rough consensus that the end objective is to improve the article by describing other views of autism besides the medical model, then we will proceed to rewrite first the lede and then the body.

A second question has to do with a comment that efforts to neutralize the wording of parts of the article (to make the autism-neutral) have been reverted. If so, who did the reverting? I would like to invite any reverting editors to participate in this discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Autism)

Yes, revising the article to include information about autism as a human condition or a neurotype, supported by citations to the best reliable sources, will improve the article. Here is a quote from a reliable source that highlights this issue:

Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) which is associated with alterations in structures and mechanisms underlying behavior, has traditionally been viewed as a harmful condition. However, there is a contrary position, which may be particularly relevant to milder cases of ASD. In this view, the positive attributes associated with ASD (e.g. high levels of creativity and mathematical ability) are emphasized and neurodiversity is celebrated, shifting the onus onto neuro-typical society to accommodate neuro-atypical persons. However, despite the growing prevalence of persons with ASD who choose to see themselves as situated on a spectrum of normal variation, there are many individuals and families who seek health interventions or advocate for more scientific research to cure or prevent ASD. These disagreements are perhaps indicative of the heterogeneous and dimensional nature of both ASD and its impact; in severe cases care rather than accommodation is required. Thus, judgments about whether or not an entity should be included in the nosology require careful assessment of the extent to which social accommodation is possible. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: In my first sentence (above), I changed the hyperlink destination for reliable sources from WP:MEDRS to WP:RS because I agree with Oolong (below) that, as WP:MEDRS itself indicates in the first paragraph, biomedical information in any article should comply with WP:MEDRS, and general information in medical articles should comply with WP:RS. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• My answers:
  • Question 1: Yes, I think that this (medical vs non-medical POVs) is the main dispute. However, because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to re-write the body first.
  • Question 2: For recent reverts, you might look at these: I believe that everyone involved is either already here or knows this is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary and helpful questions.

Yes, the main issue is as you described; I'm not sure what determines a 'rough consensus' exactly, though. We have many people making the case for it, with one extremely strident dissent from that potential consensus; and one or two other editors broadly agreeing with him, without getting very much involved. This dispute, in a broad sense, predates the six months or so of his active involvement, though - a look through the Talk:Autism/Archive index (and, for completeness, Talk:Autism spectrum) will show that closely related arguments have been cropping up regularly since, I suspect, the start.

One recurring theme has been the over-application (from my perspective, at least) of WP:MEDRS. The guideline itself states that "Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not" - but the boundaries of what does and does not fall under that rubric are not always clear. In this case, we have to ask whether the experiences and perspectives of autistic people ourselves are 'general information' or whether they are, perhaps automatically "Attributes of a disease or condition". There are likely to be grey areas like meltdown and burnout, where it is not necessarily clear which kinds of reliable sources we can lean on.

Whatamidoing has a point about the lead vs the entire article; it is traditional for the lead to follow the lead of the article as a whole, as it were. However, to the extent that we are talking about language use, perhaps it makes sense to make the lead more balanced even before we fix the whole of the rest of the article - which is an absolutely huge job, because the article is extremely overlong, and dreadful on multiple levels: repetitious, poorly structured, self-contradictory, out-of-date, with a series of gaping holes, and overwhelmingly written in a way that takes a pathologising perspective for granted. My impression is that it is so poorly maintained largely because disputes along these lines have consumed so much of the energy that could otherwise have gone into improving the article.

In case it's of interest, I ran a survey a couple of months to gather opinions and impressions of the entry (and Misplaced Pages's autism coverage more broadly) - I wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was! You can see the full responses here, but the standout result is that out of 31 respondents who'd seen it and formed an opinion, the mean rating for the question 'How well does the main Autism entry reflect your own experiences and understanding of autism?' was 3.25 out of 10.

Regarding your question about reversions, one editor has made a total of 29 reversions, often with very misleading edit summaries (e.g. compare description here with what the sources referred to actually are; I am aware that this process is supposed to steer clear of conduct issues, but as WP:CPUSH discusses, it can be hard to keep them separate). I am not aware of much other reverting that has happened lately.

--Oolong (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

(I believe that shows 88 edits, not 88 reverts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Replying here to correct egregiously misleading statements about me. Several other editors, other than myself, have extensively reverted edits on the article, as has the above poster, but this context has been omitted. Furthermore, the list of reversions cited are also implicated in different topics, not just the ones in this mediation, making the implication of "one editor" reverting things a generalised and selective representation of the edit history on the article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For the moderator my lie was here: Sorry this last one was rude: but I don't undo too much. Anyway lets not talk about each other too much because the moderator said "Comment on content, not contributors". Anthony2106 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem, I agree we should focus on commenting on the content, i was only responding to the implied misconduct accusations about me as I feel that these have the potential to undermine a constructive mediation. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are replying to me directly. I think this is specifically what Rule G.11 is about, but as long as we're doing this: based on searching the edit history, it looks like there have been a total of 35 reversions over the last six months, 29 of which (83%) were by you, while around half of the remainder were reversions of your reversions.

Perhaps a more thorough systematic search would turn up slightly different results; perhaps I have missed something; but I do not think that any part of my comment above is 'egregiously misleading'.

The moderator specifically asked about reversions, which is why I made a stab at quantifying them. Oolong (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that your dissection of the problem is entirely accurate. Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to treat medical conditions have been used to assert that anything not adhering strictly to these guidelines is either inadmissible, or be treated as subordinate, or more extremely as 'fringe'. Autism is classed as a neurodevelopmental condition that is amenable to clinical diagnosis, but it also has social, communication and identity aspects that most medical conditions do not possess. As an example, the medical model highlights deficits in communication, but research has shown that communication between autistics is just as accurate as communication between allistics, problems exist only when autistics try to communicate with allistics. This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles? To my mind there are two current viewpoints concerning autism, both having reputable supporting literature, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both are useful methods of describing autism, they even overlap to some extent, both have validity and both should be treated in a similarly full, dispassionate and encyclopaedic way on Misplaced Pages. Urselius (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"autistics try to communicate with allistics" is the double empathy problem, you should of linked that because I don't think I'm allowed to edit your comment. You said "This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles?" this indicates a difference because I like talking to autistic people a little bit better or at least I seem to make less mistakes (but non-autistic familiy members (or close people) always understand you because they know you well). autistic people say the neurotypical's are puzzling (they are just very uniform) the neurotypical's think we are puzzling, so they said we are disorded. We aren't but they aren't gonna change the name. If we were all autistic then no one would be "disorded" right? but that's off topic. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that a move away from introducing autism as it is now in the article, would be beneficial. At present, we effectively have, Autism is ... then the reader is immediately launched into verbatim or edited definitions from diagnostic manuals, eventually followed by some mention of non-medicalised aspects, as a sort of aside. This gives the medical model of autism a rather erroneous place as THE defining model. The introduction should start with content that is not weighted in one direction, that all can agree on. I would see this as an expansion of something along these lines: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental lifelong condition characterised by differences in brain architecture and function. It has been linked to genetic and environmental factors and is defined by a range of behavioural, communication and sensory features. These features can vary widely between autistic individuals, hence autism is called a spectrum condition". "Two differing interpretations of autism are currently recognised, the medical model and the neurodiversity model." Following some similar sort of opening, both models can be described, beginning with the medical model, where the material from the diagnostic manuals can go, with the neurodiversity material following. Most of the aspects in the body of the text can follow roughly the same structure. Urselius (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Autism)

Thank you for your responses. I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources.

I would like to be able to close out the moderated discussion and resume normal editing to resume in no more than two to four months. I know that it may take longer than this to finish rewriting the article, but I would like to be able to step back from the rewrite in less than six months.

I am aware that it is the recommended usual practice that lead follows body. I think that this is a special case in which a rewriting of the lede may simplify rewriting the body. If there is opposition to the change in viewpoint, then revisions to the sections of the body may be reverted as inconsistent with the lede, which will require multiple RFCs to formalize the change in emphasis. It is true that if the lede is rewritten first, it may then be later necessary to do a second rewrite to be consistent with the revised body, but I would like to get the change in viewpoint established earlier, rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. If anyone knows of a way to formalize the change in viewpoint other than by changing the lede, I am willing to consider it. I don't like the idea of an abstract RFC saying to change the emphasis of the article. I am ready to consider a coordinated approach to rewriting the body first, but I would like first to see a description as a coordinated approach. I am aware that we may need to revise the lede twice, once at the beginning and once at the end. I just don't see a way to get the rewriting of the body on a consistent basis without first rewriting the lede the first time.

I will restate the rule of reliability of sources. When autism is discussed as a medical condition, sources must satisfy the standard of medically reliable sources. When autism is discussed as a human condition, or in a cultural context, sources must satisfy the general standard of reliable sources. In particular, material that is sourced to sources meeting the general standard of reliability but not the medical standard of reliability should not be rejected unless the context is medical or psychiatric.

Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion after responding to my questions. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

72 hours have not passed per the rules since your last statement, I'm still in the process of writing a response. There are substantial issues with the arguments for the proposed lede changes which have remained unaddressed. These include the lack of reliable sources opposing the global scientific consensus, and that the consensus is demonstrably not isolated to a medical context, and so the medical interpretation of the evidence is a gross misrepresentation for basis to rewrite the lede. May I elaborate on these issues in a statement without this DRN prematurely concluding and normative editing resuming? I did make a request in a prior reply if I can do this, but I didn't receive any response. Thank you. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement 5.1 by moderator (Autism)

Perhaps I wasn't clear about at least one aspect of my approach to the lede rewrite. After the draft revision of the lede is developed, I recognize that there may be disagreement with it. If there are disagreements with it, there will be a Request for Comments to obtain community input and establish community consensus. While the RFC is in progress, other discussion of the lede will be on hold, although there can be discussion of edits to the sections of the body of the article. So this DRN will not conclude prematurely. I hope that this is clear. A rewrite of the lede will be a draft rewrite, to be followed by an RFC, which will accept it or reject it. This will give editors who agree with the draft and disagree with the draft rewrite thirty days to present their cases to the community. Any decisions as important as changing the lede will not be made by local consensus here but by the community. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have residual concerns. First, from my understanding, the rules state that we have 3 days to make a statement responding to the moderator's statement. However, just one day after, you issued statement 5.0 in which you basically concluded that there is agreement to move the article away from a "medical position". This is not a fair assessment as I was in the midst of writing my statement to demonstrate how that assertion is highly inaccurate as well as provide further countering evidence. As such, there is no such agreement, making it as well as support for the medical interpretation of the evidence, prematurely concluded. Additionally, in my initial statement I cited the citations demonstrating the global scientific consensus and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies on its importance, which have not been acknowledged in any responding statements as of yet. Please may you redact these conclusions, or alter them accordingly, based on considering my newest statement?

Second, we initiated this DRN process to seek an assessment from a neutral moderator because discussions on the talk page have been marred by persistent misrepresentation of arguments and citations, among other issues. Does "community consensus" in this context refers solely or primarily to the participants in this DRN from the article talk page? Without relying on external mediators, this risks replicating the same issues in the talk page. We would just be reiterating the same points already made in the talk page to the same users.

And I seem to be the only active participant for maintaining the current general framing of ASD in the article. Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN. I hope you can understand my concerns that this would ultimately skew any perceived consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Autism)

I like your proposed plan and your rationale, i.e., to start with a new lede, that will likely require revision down the road, but that will serve as a framework for revising the body of the article. I also appreciate your clear, coherent statement about reliable sources. Thank you for your hard work on this. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense to me, and I am quite grateful for your willingness to devote such a long period of time to moderating the discussion so that headway occurs in improving the article. As I said earlier, I can only contribute in limited ways here, but I will continue to read the exchanges, and will contribute when I think I can be helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sixth statement by editors (Autism)

In answering the moderator's question, I see two main issues implicated in the dispute. First is, whether - or the extent to which - ASD should be framed in the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and risks/causes. The second issue regards compliance with due weight based on the sources.

Addressing the First Issue

Due weight and neutrality on Misplaced Pages do not indicate that two contrasting viewpoints ought to be presented equally or be of comparable influence in the terminology used in articles. The reliable sources substantiating positions need to be weighed in based on their reputability and the consensus of them in the field. For further details, see Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:scientific_consensus.

Around the world, the developers of scientific guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews, etc. unanimously conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels (for references, see list of references). Additionally, some of these references are essentially developed by a unification of scientists. For example, the Misplaced Pages article concludes that ASD in the ICD-11 was "produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".

The idea that this global scientific consensus is localised to the context of medicine is highly inaccurate. The references pertain to a wide array of subfields and contexts related to ASD, clearly substantiating a general scientific consensus for the validity and application of the terminology - not just in a medical context. For a list of quotes documenting this, see list of quotes.

In fact, many of the references are not medically based at all, with some such as the international guidelines from ESCAP concluding that no medicines exist to reduce the core symptoms of ASD, and as such, is irrelevant to the primary purposes of the guideline and thus gets a minor mention. Another example to demonstrate, are the standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. The 23rd citation in the Misplaced Pages article (Nelson, 2020) also concludes "the fact that autism is a disorder does not entail that medicalization is the only course".

Addressing the Second Issue

The references given to support the opposing perspective are insufficient relative to the scientific consensus. If we exclude the blog post citations (because they are considered unreliable according to Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources), one editor has provided the following sources per their edit to alter the third lede paragraph:

A link to A PDF stored on thedigitalcommons.com, apparently authored by Tom Shakespear. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal, and has a single author.

A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD.

In a prior discussion, which I cannot locate as it appears to have been archived or deleted, they have also cited a text-book and other advocacy papers or trade books which advocated against framing ASD as a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Relying on these is problematic for several reasons. First, as shown in list of references, other peer-reviewed reports and textbooks disagree with the above articles. Thus, they cannot be selectively relied upon for the general framing of ASD in the lede. Second, these sources are advocating for something that is not currently established and as such, cannot overturn the scientific consensus classification of ASD as it stands currently. Third, by taking due weight and source reliability into account, the references do not overturn the global scientific consensus. This is because they are not even close to the source reliability of the standardised diagnostic criteria, international and national guidelines, and scientific consensus statements, which indicate otherwise.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the lede should continue to reflect the global scientific consensus that recognises ASD as a valid disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying levels of severity, as required by Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. The medical interpretation of the consensus is flawed and lacks careful consideration. Thus, rewriting the lede to exclude the terminology except in medical contexts should not be admissible.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick reply to clarify two things. I have not elaborated on the specific issues with the changes proposed by an editor on the third lede paragraph because I don't think this is (at least, as of yet) a main matter in the dispute, so I didn't want to include it and make my statement overly lengthy. I also apologise if I have not comprehensively covered the refs that have been given to support the Neurodiversity Movement's perspective; some have been scattered across talk discussions, and so I cited the ones used in article edits and the main ones I recall cited in discussions. In either case, the points about their general invalidity would still stand. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Autism)

Димитрий Улянов Иванов, my understanding is that by "community consensus," Robert McClenon means consensus via an RfC advertised to the community at large; elsewhere, he contrasted that with "local consensus here" (i.e., consensus only among the editors participating in this DRN). Re: "Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN," at least one of them was invited to participate here but declined (as did some editors who don't support the current framing); participation here is entirely voluntary. My understanding is that you can invite wider participation as long as the invitation is consistent with the guidelines in WP:Canvassing; however, since the existence of this DRN has already been advertised on the Autism talk page, I don't know that there are any other venues that would make sense to advertise it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why my comment has that visual appearance. I don't see anything in the source editor that would result in that. Apologies, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You have a space before the first curly bracket, that produces the 'box effect'. Feel free to remove this pointer once you have edited your text. Urselius (talk)

Fixed. Thank you! FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Vellalar

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sri Lankan Vellalar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilyapundit (talk · contribs)
• Luigi Boy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.

Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.

Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:

- Terminology differences

- The inclusion of the mythology section

Terminology Differences

The root of the terminology issue stems from my edit, where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were WP:FRINGE.

To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:

- Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the Akananuru.

- Tamil: வெள்ளாளர், romanized: Veḷḷāḷar represents the caste name in contemporary usage. This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste Vellalar often uses this term Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.

Inclusion of the Mythology Section

The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.

The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.

Third-Party Opinion

Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS, the concerned user should raise the issue on WP:RSN. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.

Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the participants want moderated discussion and if this does not involve a question about the reliability of sources. Please read DRN Rule D and the general sanctions concerning South Asian social groups. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, first, whether they agree to DRN Rule D and that discussions of South Asian social groupings are subject to special rules. Each editor is then asked, second, what changes they want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Each editor is asked, third, whether there are issues about the reliability of sources. If I determine that there are issues about the reliability of sources, or if an editor states that there are such issues, I will close this discussion until that question is resolved at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Robert. I greatly appreciate it. Let me summarize my points simply and clearly. I value your time.

1. Mythological Origin and Its Sources in the Sri Lankan Vellalar Article

=== Mythological origin === (sri lankan vellalar)

According to myth, the Vellalar and Pallar are descendants of two farmer brothers. The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter. After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.

The provided Source 1 (Vincentnathan, p. 385) states:

"myth for the Pallars of Sri Lanka , another Tamil Harijan caste ranked higher than Paraiyar , in which two farmer brothers became ancestors of the Pallar and Vellalar castes : The elder brother's land , tools , cattle , and crops were ..."

This line is from David Kenneth's The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia (p. 189).

"5.9: PALLAR ORIGIN MYTH: Pallan and Vellälan, both farmers, were annan and tampi . Pallan had many children; Vellälan had four children.There was a horrible thunderstorm and a cyclone which destroyedPallan s land, tools, cattle, and crop but left Vellälan s possessionsintact. Pallan had no food and had to ask his younger brother for something to eat."

The same book discusses the myth of the Vellalar. (p. 185)

"5.2:VELLALAR ORIGIN MYTH: Although many Vellälar, the dominant landowning caste, were asked to relate their origin myth, I was unable to elicit anything more explicit than the myth recorded by Arunachalam (1964):

A branch of Vellälas the old ruling caste of Tamil land claimed to have received grain and instruction on its cultivation from the Earth Goddess Parvathi hence Velläjas were called pillais ; kings also drove the plow. Vellälars would elaborate by saying that they were both the creators of life (in that they created food) and the rulers of the land."

The provided source 2 (The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity, p. 149)

"From the Vellalar point of view, the stigma of Nalavar and Pallar rank, coupled with the history of these castes as recent immigrants from south India, denies that they have any real claim to membership in the Tamil community. In the early 1970s, some Vellalars expressly denied that Nalavars and Pallars were Tamils; and in tum, members of these two castes in the early 1970's still sometimes referred to Vellalars as "Tamils," thus driving home the social and cultural gulf that divided them from Vellalars. The Nalavars' and Pallars' recent historical origins in Dutch-sponsored immigrations from south India, and their putativelydarl<er skin, also seive to deepen the Vellalar sense that the Minority Tamils are a people apart from the mainstream Tamil community.

It should be noted that Minority Tamils do not always accept the view that they are non-Tamilians. The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers; after the older brother's death, the widow--a "bad woman," according to the tale-made the younger one into a landless slave."

Hence it is the tale of pallars.

2. Contradictions Between the Mythological Origin and the Real Origin of the Sri Lankan Pallars

=== Mythological origin === (Sri Lankan Pallar)

The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers. The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter. After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.

=== Early period ===

The Sri Lankan Pallar and the Pallars of Tamil Nadu share a common origin. The Pallars traditionally inhabited the fertile Sangam landscape known as Marutham. They were earlier known as Kadaisiyar, tenant farmers on the land of the Uzhavar or Kalamar. The women of this community were noted in Sangam literature for their expertise in paddy transplantation.

=== Medieval period ===

The Pallars migrated to Sri Lanka as serfs accompanied by their chiefs, on whose land they toiled. They migrated in large numbers mainly from Chola country in search of fertile land. Pallars settling in the Jaffna Peninsula, which was rich in Palmyra palm, joined others there involved in toddy tapping. Some Pallars were involved in other occupations, such as fishers, servants in forts, and harvesters of Indigo plant roots, contributing to the famous dye industry of Jaffna Kingdom.

These are copied from the articles. Upon reading and verification, it is evident that the Pallars originated from the Pallar of Tamil Nadu. The same applies to the Vellalar. Both groups migrated to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu and are distinct.

3. Conclusion

The user made a preferred edit to suit their narrative. Additionally, they misinterpreted the source, which falls under WP:OR. The myth of the Pallars cannot be attributed to the Vellalars, especially when the same source specifically discusses the Vellalars. The mythological origin section is clearly outdated and invalid, as it contradicts well-documented reality. I refer to WP:RSUW.

If anyone wants to add the mythological origin to the "Sri Lankan Vellalar" article, it should specifically address the Vellalars. As per WP:RSUW, the section is unnecessary.

Kautilyapundit (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Vincentnathan, Lynn (1987). Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community. University of Wisconsin--Madison. p. 385.
2. Manogaran, Chelvadurai; Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity. Westview Press. pp. 35, 43, 147, 149. ISBN 9780813388458.
3. David, Kenneth (1977-01-01). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 189, 190, 204. ISBN 9783110807752.
4. Contributions to Indian Sociology. University of Oxford: Mouton. 1993. p. 69.
5. David, K. (2011). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. World Anthropology. De Gruyter. p. 189. ISBN 978-3-11-080775-2. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
6. Vincentnathan, Lynn (1987). Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community. University of Wisconsin--Madison. p. 385.
7. Manogaran, Chelvadurai; Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity. Westview Press. pp. 35, 43, 147, 149. ISBN 9780813388458.
8. David, Kenneth (1977-01-01). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 189, 190, 204. ISBN 9783110807752.
9. Contributions to Indian Sociology. University of Oxford: Mouton. 1993. p. 69.
10. University, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru (2017-08-25). Historical Dictionary of the Tamils. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 371. ISBN 978-1-5381-0686-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. History of People and Their Environs: Essays in Honour of Prof. B.S. Chandrababu. Indian Universities Press: Bharathi Puthakalayam. 2011. p. 320. ISBN 978-93-80325-91-0.
12. Arasaratnam, Sinnappah (1996-01-01). Ceylon and the Dutch, 1600-1800: External Influences and Internal Change in Early Modern Sri Lanka. n Variorum. p. 381. ISBN 978-0-86078-579-8.
13. Raghavan, M. D. (1971). Tamil culture in Ceylon: a general introduction. Kalai Nilayam. pp. 104, 184, 193.

Zeroth statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

First statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

I asked whether each editor had any questions about the reliability of sources. That question does not appear to have been answered. If there are any questions about sources, please state them for me so that I can ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the sources.

I asked each editor to state concisely what they wanted to change, or to leave the same. The answers are long, and it is not obvious to me what each editor wants. It appears that the main dispute has to do with the mythological origin section. So I will ask each editor whether they want to: delete the mythological origin section; leave the section unchanged; expand it; or modify it but rework or revise it.

There was a Third Opinion by User:AirshipJungleman29. Normally a Third Opinion should resolve a content dispute. So I will ask each editor whether they agree with the Third Opinion, and, if not, how and why do they disagree with the Third Opinion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The source's reliability isn't in question, but the cherry-picked content focusing on Pallars is problematic.

The third opinion didn’t resolve the dispute. The myth section should be removed as it contradicts credible sources and reality. If mythology is included, it should focus on Vellalars, not misattribute myths of Pallars.

Edits were made to suit a narrative, misinterpreting the source. The outdated mythological origin section conflicts with documented facts and is unnecessary per WP:RSUW. Kautilyapundit (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

Imran Khan

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)
• WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs)
• Veldsenk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The content removed in this diff had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, Reham Khan is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled Reham Khan (memoir), published by HarperCollins. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, Misplaced Pages is not censored.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Imran Khan#Reham Khan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources.

Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001

Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially Misplaced Pages:BLP, which states "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

While the book was published by a reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, she lost the case and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, suggesting a potential motive for bias.

The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.

Summary of dispute by Veldsenk

Imran Khan discussion

• Volunteer Note - Is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard first, before any other content issues are discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a biography of a living person? If so, it might be answered more quickly at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on editing of biographies of living persons. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community.

I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)

I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.

I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute:

Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in her book that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018. Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth." Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. "Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan". dnaindia.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 10 August 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
2. "Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book". Deccanchronicle.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 14 July 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
3. "Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan". hindustantimes.com. 13 July 2018. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
4. Tagore, Vijay (15 July 2018). "Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan". Mumbai Mirror. Archived from the original on 11 August 2018. Retrieved 11 August 2018.
5. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2021. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Abo Yemen (talk · contribs)
• Javext (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV

Summary of dispute by Javext

Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:

-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"

-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"

-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:

-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."

-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."

So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.

First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.

The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory

Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.
Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy

Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.

The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.

Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."

.

Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.

-

"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."

.

You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.

-

"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."

.

What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..

-

"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;

'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'

Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."

.

I already responded to this above

-

"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."

.

Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "

-

"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."

.

I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."

-

"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."

.

I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet wikipedia standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.

I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
(Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright,
Changes that I want to be made:

• I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
• The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text
• As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).

Abo Yemen✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.

If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?

Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8Ahttps://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. : However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).

First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards