Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• FredrickBrennan (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection.
• Fredrick R. Brennan (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection.
• Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

The sentence in question:

In 2019, he considered having a child with his wife, but maintained he still believes in genetic testing for prospective parents.

This is unfortunately an edit request regarding one of the most touchy subjects that this article touches on and that I've ever had to deal with in my life so for that I apologize.

I had not for some reason noticed this in the past until a friend brought it up to me.

"Genetic testing for prospective parents" is vague wording. It does not exactly state either my beliefs or what happened. Nicky Woolf was attempting to explain the initial stages of the process of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (note please I am the author of the Commons media used in the lead on the page). The way that it is worded right now is very confusing because why would I undergo genetic testing on myself, only to have children the natural way, I already know that I am affected. So why would I need a test to tell me what I already know? No, the test was to determine my exact genetic mutation in preparation for possible future PGD with her. I still believe that for myself personally were I to have children I would make use of this technology, that is to say, the entire process of PGD, but I do not believe that it should be forced on anyone. Furthermore, I certainly do not believe that sterilization should be forced on anyone, I never have believed that. As other editors have noted compulsory sterilization was opposed by me in the original Daily Stormer article, (a publication I profoundly regret submitting to to this day).

I would like the words genetic testing somehow clarified here that this was part of a process of PGD, the same process I wrote about in that awful digital toilet paper as a younger man.

@GRuban, GorillaWarfare, and Jorm: I am highlighting you as you are familiar with me and with this article. I may not have time to answer right away this morning. Do not feel obligated to comment, I know that this is touchy, I'm sorry but people are reading this and misunderstanding what happened and it falsely portrays me as a hypocrite. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto: The problem is that neither the Tortoise nor the Stormer articles say PGD/PGT, the Tortoise one only says testing, and the Stormer says sterilization, our clarification would not be supported by any source. But! There is an easy solution that I suggest to article subjects with an internet presence: say so on your site. I see you have a Twitter listed on your page. Tweet there, something like: "The Tortoise article (link) got a bit garbled in writing that I support "genetic testing for disabled people who want to have children" - what I meant there was specifically pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (link to Misplaced Pages article)." I think that's under the Twitter character limit? Then drop a link to it here, and we can use that as a WP:ABOUTSELF source, and clarify. Side notes:
  • I see the link to the Stormer article itself has been removed. Do you strongly object to having it? Because, honestly, I think it should be here, it's important. But if you strongly object, I won't press the point, per WP:IAR.
  • Did I mention how much I am surprised and gratified that you are active here? Not just in this article - lots of people are interested in the article about themselves - but all the others you've written and contributed to. When I wrote the beginnings of this one, I would never have imagined you'd come here and be a very good editor. Thank you so much.

--GRuban (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I see you've been editing - can you make the tweet? --GRuban (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I'm going to close this request with "needs a source", but when you get around to making the tweet or otherwise finding a source, ping me, and I'll gladly make the change. --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't really see why the sentence could be read as anything about you undergoing tests yourself or believing that it should be forced on anyone. And as long as the source only talks about whether you think "governments should provide genetic testing for disabled people who want to have children" and the sentence is cited to it, we can't state anything but that. Perhaps "maintained he still believes in" can be rephrased to something like "stated that he supports"? But if you never supported compulsory sterilization (which Woolf apparently got wrong) then I'm not even sure how your support for testing or you considering having a child is all that relevant for our article. I would be fine with excising the whole sentence (and merging the paragraph with the one before it). Nardog (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand what he's getting at here, why it's important. A) He's a rather prominent person with a rare condition (so even if he isn't "the" face of the condition, he's certainly one of the major ones), and B) that condition has been a major factor in his life. So what he says about the condition is both important and very relevant to the article. Fortunately we don't have to excise the sentence, we can easily correct it with a simple note, as above. --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

What is there to correct though? The source said he "thinks governments should provide genetic testing for disabled people who want to have children" in general, not for people with his condition in particular. Nardog (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"I would like the words genetic testing somehow clarified here that this was part of a process of PGD" - see Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In other words, not "test the parents to see if they've got it" - they know they've got it - but "test each embryo". --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Then AFAICS the problem lies not so much with "genetic testing" (which is the phrase the source uses after all) as with "prospective parents". We may amend it to "prospective parents with disabilities" or something because then it would be clearer it isn't about testing the parents themselves. Nardog (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)