Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:35, 28 January 2006

Controversy section

Attwood's remarks and/or views on SF Fans as people with Asperger Syndrome are currently being discussed here and here.  AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the controversy section since only one source was quoted as reporting on the remark in question, while no sources were given that report on a negative response from anyone, let alone SF fans as a group. I spent some time looking for such reports myself but did not find any references. In effect, there is just one person reporting a negative response, User_talk:Davidkevin, which is not sufficient to warrant mention in a Misplaced Pages biography (see Neutral point of view). AvB ÷ talk 14:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fact is fact, whether it's known by one person or many. Just because *you*, living in and writing from the Netherlands, can't find evidence on the web of what I know to be true by personal experience here in the United States, gives you absolutely no authority to make Pronouncements From On High about what prejudices exist here or do not.

I have noticed in real-life meetings and online discussion a faction of "Attwood fans" who, because of the good work Attwood *has* done for AS patients, cannot bear to hear anything negative spoken of him, regardless of the truth of it. I am beginning to think that you're another one of these Attwood fans, and will continue to misuse your editing ability to remove anything negative about him which might be mentioned here, regardless of its validity.

Davidkevin 10:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC) --> after first revert. AvB 12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to concede that perhaps I should be more moderate in my phrasing about the fact of Attwood's prejudice -- being the target of a prejudice or bigotry does tend to annoy one -- and am open to suggestion of how I can better phrase it -- but I am not willing to concede the fact that such prejudice exists on his part, because it *does*.

Davidkevin 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do read up on WP:NPOV if you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages. AvB ÷ talk 10:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I've already given you the WP:NPOV link about four times, I will make this easier for you. Read WP:NPOV. Follow the first link on that page. Read the tutorial. Then reread our entire correspondence. AvB ÷ talk 10:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC) --> after second revert. AvB 12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I will make this extremely easy for you. The tutorial says: "The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from. "It's what everybody I know believes," is a start. But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions." AvB ÷ talk 12:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC) --> after third revert. AvB 12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to trying to censor a fact you do not like, you are rude and condescending. Thank you so much.

It was interesting to put in a quotation, go back and get the reference data, and find you'd deleted the quotation before I could even put in the reference. You must *really* place Attwood on quite a pedestal to be so anxious to make sure not one negative thing about him can appear in print.

Davidkevin 12:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Recently, User AvB requested a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, so I am here. I have read from the source that Davidkevin has provided, along with the controvery section in this article. I think that Attwood's quote has been taken out of context, and I agree with AvB that more sources are needed.

"Dr. Attwood has made comments indicating that he believes that Star Trek fans frequently exhibit personality defects indicating a likelihood of Asperger syndrome"

Comments? I only read one comment in the news article, and I believe that the quote has been taken out of context. The fact could be mentioned in the article, but not in the way Davidkevin wrote. Olorin28 13:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dammit, *comments*. I've seen similar-but-non-identical quotations from Dr. Attwood on other web pages, going back to 2000. I tried to find them, but I could not: I conjecture that they have been removed from the web or, being newspaper articles, simply aged off as not all newspapers keep permanent archives.

The quotation used was not taken out of context, it's exactly what he said, and it's my opinion, based on the frequency of times I saw it and variations of it (four, in total, including this one), that it's a valid statement of what he believes.

However, given that I can't show them to you, a rephrasing of "Dr. Attwood has commented" would be acceptable to me.

What is not acceptable is a supposed encyclopedia deliberately leaving out the valid citation of a prejudice on the part of a promenent mental health professional which could affect the accuracy of his diagnoses. It is a fact which should be included, if "encycopedic", in the larger meaning of the word, is to be achieved.

And by the way, I don't regard as "mediation" any such which doesn't consult both parties before censoring one of them. Where is the neutrality there?

Davidkevin 13:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is frequent practice to temporary comment out disputed sections until the conflict was resolved. It would be good if AvB and you can find a solution to this, or I can try to make a compromise solution. Olorin28 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you & thanks for stepping by, Olorin. I'd certainly like to hear a compromise from an independent party like you. Then again, I'm afraid I just found out this user has also reverted another Attwood-related compromise on which we agreed two weeks ago (see Asperger syndrome). Also, the only thing that, I think, can be left standing here is the reference + the remark with sufficient context. Which is sort of silly, as if this is what Attwood's all about. Perhaps David could ask around on Talk:Asperger syndrome? Lots of other experienced editors there. FWIW, AvB ÷ talk 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think AvB and I can work things out: I've come to regard her as an "Attwood fan" who simply *cannot* coutenance anything negative written about her fannish object, and she is now (inaccurately, unfairly, libelously) screaming "Cyberstalker!!!" at me in order to shift the focus of the discussion from the facts to me.

As I said above, changing the phrasing to "Dr. Attwood has commented..." would be acceptable.

Please look at all my posts before you decide. There are valid medical, economic, and justicial reasons why it is necessary for any article which claims to be "encyclopedic" to include a reference to this prejudice of his. People's lives are affected by this man's opinions, and his forming those opinions on the basis of invalid data is important information.

Davidkevin 14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Dr. Attwood has made remarks concerning fans of Star Trek (several times <- If you want to say it, you need sources), noting in 2004 that "Star Trek conventions are secret reunions for people with Asperger’s Syndrome.” Olorin28 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As David knows, I have no problem with mentioning the statement (as seen on the Asperger Syndrome page). It is really a bit silly as stand-alone remark in a bio though. It was posted with the clear intent to add a controversy section. No controversy without adverse responses.  AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If Davidkevin can pull out sources that documents negative response to this by Star Trek fans, then I guess this sentence can be added in... "His comment have generated outcry among fans of Star Trek and many have protested his prejudice." Olorin28 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as this has been my point all along. AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer, as I said above, "Dr. Attwood has commented...." That is as accurate a statement as I can document right now, and it's straightforward and not fuzzy.

As for an outcry, how many people make an outcry? I have ADHD, with AS to a lesser extent, and I'm also a Star Trek fan, and I know the two have nothing to do with each other. My wife is a Star Trek fan, and she doesn't have AS at all. Of our two children, one has AS, one is neurotypical, and both like Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek -- should we assume he had AS? Bjo & John Trimble, who worked for G.R. and organized the letter-writing which got the original series its third season on NBC, should we automatically assume they have AS? Writers David Gerrold, Larry Niven, and Harlan Ellison? The actors? The production crew?

Attwood's comment is "Asperger's by association", unscientific and prejudicial. Again, how much of an outcry do you need to feel comfortable allowing me to state the obvious?

Davidkevin 20:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is whether Attwood's comments are notable at all. Olorin28 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"David" has now used language I interpret as a direct threat with a lawsuit. Olorin, if you wish to retract from this mediation, please say so. "David"'s behavior has gone from unwarranted to inexcusable, and s/he is rapidly exhausting the little patience I still have for him/her. AvB ÷ talk 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done no such thing, so I can only surmise that you're either delusional or a liar. Either way, you're fulla baloney, and nuts to you. Don't write to me any more, please don't mess with my articles or edits, and stop harassing and Wikistalking me, or I'll make a formal complaint to whomever I need to here on Misplaced Pages about you -- that isn't a threat, it's just a statement of fact.

Davidkevin 20:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please present evidence before making accusations, Avb. Thx Olorin28 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did something wrong Olorin, I'm relatively new here on WP and trying to follow the rules as explained to me. First of all: this is not offered as a factor in this mediation - it's just why I thought you might want to step aside, the point being that I do not feel free to RfC David's behavior when your mediation is still unfinished. If you want to continue, this is still about the issue whether or not anyone can revert (1) the removal of the Attwood comment - which I do not oppose per se but, but agree may not be notable (2) revert the removal of a personal opinion (i.e. without offering a reputable source) (3) revert the deletion of a controversy section when there is no documented controversy other than personal experience.

Anyway, here is the evidence of the legal threat. I will post the evidence of inexcusable behavior later on, perhaps tomorrow since it's 0:50 am here, also found on this page, here, here, and possibly elsewhere. (Please note that when my question re stalking can be taken as an accusation, especially after all the insults, personal attacks etc, this can be taken as a legal threat in the spirit of WP:NLT):

David, it follows from my and your arguments that you and I are both correct, so I've changed the article to reflect both views. I hope you can agree with the change. I've removed your arguments, which - while both compelling and applicable to the opposite POV - only served to convince other editors and have no place in the article itself. If you agree, you may want to similarly update the SF fandom article. (The Attwood article still needs a better quote I think.) Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can live with the current phrasing. (unsigned comment by David somewhere on 24 December 2005)

Then why revert it two weeks later? Did you find a source? Or are you Cyberstalking me? (now on Talk:Tony Attwood, User_talk:Davidkevin, and here AvB ÷ talk 13:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I just removed the three words "or vice versa". After giving the matter further thought it occurred to me that a.) the reverse was inaccurate, and b.) constituted a "weasle-wording", which is mentioned as undesirable in the NPOV article you keep throwing at me.

Cyberstalking? You're nuts, lady. I don't know who you are, and I don't care who you are. I care very much about this *issue*, and evidently you do as well as we keep crossing paths on variations of it. But you, yourself? Baloney. (I must say I admire your nerve, though, as a false accusation such as that is greatly useful in diverting an argument from its merits into irrelevancies.)

Davidkevin 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

P. S.: I never heard of you until you starting going from article to article to article which I had edited deleting what I had written. If anyone is stalking anyone, it's more accurate to say that you're doing it to me than I am doing it to you, although I think it's more your need to see Dr. Attwood unsullied than any real stalking.

And, finally, false accusations of criminal behavior such as this are libelous. I respectfully request you retract or delete it and apologize immediately.

Davidkevin 14:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyberstalking is about harassment and excessive personal attacks, not about discussing edits that actually don't even need discussion but could have been reverted immediately. AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I retract what I said about your being nuts, and apologize. You're not nuts, you're just making an ad hominem attack in an attempt to manipulate the conflict.

By the definition of "wikistalking" given in the harassment article you just cited, your behavior is Wikistalking, not mine. Personally, I wish I had never had any contact with you whatsoever.

And while I'm not goofy enough to go through the hassle of attempting to file a lawsuit in international court (so you're safe there), it's not a violation of Misplaced Pages rules to make note again of the fact that you've libelled me. Common decency requires that you apologize and retract your remarks, and I again respectfully request that you do this immediately.

Davidkevin 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, this is getting a bit out of hand. I am requesting a Request for Comments for this article, and I will withdraw this mediation for now. Olorin28 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Summary of AvB's questions regarding the disputed Controversy section

(See commented out section in the Tony Attwood article) and RfC posted by User:Olorin28 who had come forward after my request for mediation.

• Should Attwood's remark be included in the article? If so, how should it be worded? Source reference:
• Should Davidkevin's comment be included in the article without a reputable source?
• Should there be a controversy section if only Attwood's remark is included?

 AvB ÷ talk 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Responses from Davidkevin and AvB

I never had to Request for Comments before, so I don't know the procedure, but I do know that I object to someone who I believe to have a strong bias toward keeping undercover Attwood's possible prejudices regardless of how they may affect his patients or third parties determining how the questions are framed.

Davidkevin 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I disputed your edit and I am the only one who can write up what I think is wrong with it and what I would like to ask passers-by.  AvB ÷ talk 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also the matter of her stalking my edits -- I don't want to have to deal with this person, and want her to leave me alone, and this deliberate, continuing harassing of my edit is just part of her stalking agenda. I want more objective people to frame the questions, and her not involved in the process.

Davidkevin 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No comment. AvB ÷ talk 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AvB withdrawing from the conflict

David, this is not personal. It's about whether this or this edit is in violation of policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

I am withdrawing from this conflict as per advice from more experienced editors. I would advise you to do the same. I hope others will be able to keep Misplaced Pages neutral where you and I failed to reach consensus. I expect a lot from the RfC process. AvB ÷ talk 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Diff of recent changes to this talk page

In order to help any RfC commenters I have formatted the RfC section and added three links to this talk page (see diff). AvB ÷ talk 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to RfC

I presume that the basis for the disputed section is a quote from an editorial by Stephen Fay in Ellsworth American, verbatim: He speculated, only half in jest, that “Star Trek conventions are secret reunions for people with Asperger’s Syndrome. Biographies of living poeple are a very sensitive issue and merit extreme prudence, see: Misplaced Pages:Libel. This is even more important in vew of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy. An single indirect quote from an editorial is too little evidence for forming the basis of a remark in a bio article. The editor critisizing Attwood should make an effort to properly document Attwood's opinion about Star War fan clubs, as well as reactions to that opinion, citing several reputable sources, Andreas 15:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found the reputable initial source: http://www.nas.org.uk/content/1/c4/36/18/attwood2.pdf. "In a talk at the in , Attwood said "Star Trek conventions are reunions for people with Asperger’s." The only way that the response currently in the article can be included is if you can attribute it to someone - IE: "Foo said that classifying Star Trek fans as a group as Asperger's sufferers may be challengable as cultural prejudice rather than medical diagnosis." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite may have resolved this particular controversy. When I know something from personal experience and cannot locate a supporting reference I leave a comment on the relevant article talk page. Durova 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing RfC

Andreas, Hipocrite and Durova, thanks for taking the time to help two newbie editors out. Olorin28, thanks for mediating and starting the article RfC. A couple of weeks ago I intended to start a user conduct RfC but it doesn't seem all that important anymore. David, does this resolve your concerns about my insistence upon quotes from reputable sources? The re-addition of the Attwood remark itself is not really disputed (although discouraged by Andreas and, I think, Olorin28). A 5:1 majority is opposed to allowing the Controversy section header and your comments without quotes from one or more reputable sources. See also WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:BIO, Misplaced Pages:Libel and the John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy debacle referred to by Andreas. I will place the Controversy section on the talk page as per Durova's advice. You are invited to add it back to the article when you can provide one (preferably more) reputable sources reporting on a negative reponse from Star Trek/SF fans and possibly additional sources regarding the original Attwood remark. Finally, I am extending an invitation to start over and grow some mutual respect. I hope you will accept it - just say the word on your talk page where I'm posting this as well. Or feel free to ignore. AvB ÷ talk 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this how the process is supposed to work?

An agenda-driven stalker calls for votes in order to make certain that undisputed negative factual information (the mischaracterization of Star Trek fans as sufferers from a pervasive personality disorder) about her fan-subject stays deleted. She then claims to be "withdrawing" from the controversy she has created, then reappears to count the "votes", deciding that the factual negative information about her fan-subject cannot appear.

What the hell kind of objective review process is this?

I see comments, not votes, and AvB is not an objective arbitrator to be making any kind of decision about work I have posted or edits I have made.

No wonder I see so many negative comments about Misplaced Pages and its "objectivity" on other websites. There is no objectivity here, nor is the false painting of Dr. Attwood a "neutral" point of view -- and the stalking of edits she doesn't like by someone who wants to make sure that false picture stays painted should not be tolerated.

Davidkevin 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation indicates you are not an administrator. You have no authority to declare that no more comments are necessary, you have no authority to count "votes", you have no authority to "invite" me to edit articles only to your liking.

Leave me alone, leave my edits alone. That you appear to be unable to coutenance my disagreement with you about Dr. Attwood, to the point of continually and repeatedly making false charges about me in order to attemt to discredit my information and harrass and intimidate me is your own problem, not mine. Your actions are completely inappropriate, and I again request that you cease them.

Davidkevin 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section moved here for now due to lack of reputable sources

Dr. Attwood has made comments indicating that he believes that Star Trek fans frequently exhibit personality defects indicating a likelihood of Asperger syndrome, i.e., "Star Trek conventions are secret reunions for people with Asperger's Syndrome." See "About Asperger's" by Stephen Fay, Ellsworth (Maine) American, July 29, 2004, retrieved December 23, 2005. However, the argument can be made that classifying Star Trek fans as a group as Asperger's sufferers may be challengable as cultural prejudice rather than medical diagnosis.

I continue to fail to see why, since it has now been documented from two sources, why Attwood's "diagnosis" cannot be included. That it is challengable as a false diagnosis may be obviously derived from that, but if even "brick to the head"-obvious inferences are not allowed, at least the undisputed fact that Attwood has made these bizarre comments should be.

Davidkevin 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)