Talk:Alison Singer

Edit request #1

Please remove the following link/cite, which appears twice in the article;

This is a blog, which is not permitted in a BLP as a source. Further, as it is the only source for the second paragraph of the Autism Every Day controversy section that paragraph should also be removed unless another source can be found for it. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:E93E:2CDA:8C8D:BD4A (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: You are misreading WP:BLPSOURCES: Never use self-published sources—including ... blogs,... unless written or published by the subject of the article. (emphasis in original). This exception clearly applies here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I have a query relating to this ruling. If the claim being supported by this source is controversial (I submit that it is) does this exception still apply? The reconciliation she claims AFAIK doe not exist, and all the advocates I know (yes, hearsay isn't allowed in the article I accept that) have never read any apology from her over it and an admission that it was wrong no matter what the circumstances. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you are disputing a source based on your own understanding of rumor and hearsay? If true, then that is neither sufficient grounds to consider the disputed source "controversial" nor to exclude this source from the cited exception. You may also want to read the Core Content Policies. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I don't personally believe it to be rumour or hearsay. I believe it to be true. She has never formally apologised for Autism Every Day. The problem is proving it with sources per WP rules. That's why I described it that way. I call that blog entry a lie - hence it's controversial. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I look again at your comments and I see phrases like "personally believe", and "I believe" and "all the advocates I know". Personal interpretations not supported by any reliable sources are not usable either as sources themselves nor as the basis for disputing the sources that are included. You may wan to read this link. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I think you should know that the person who created this article and included this passage is subject to a COI, so I think your claim against me on NPOV in those circumstances is rather offensive. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Immaterial. That said, please stop pinging me. I have explained patiently and at length why your request violates site policies and that's as far as any obligation I have to you goes. You have made it crystal clear that your request is based on your personal beliefs so yes, that is the very definition of POV editing. I will not make this change for you. Period. If another editor wishes to read this conversation and make their own judgement they are perfectly free to make a change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Immaterial hmm? There is no proof any advocate has been apologised to. That is the basis of the controversy under existing rules. Think about that one. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request #2

Please add the notability tag to this article. This woman does not pass the GNG guidelines as her notability has not been established. The creator of the article has a history of editing pushing a POV and this article is a part of that POV push. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:E93E:2CDA:8C8D:BD4A (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please post at WP:RSN and ask whether the source is suitable verification for the statement "Singer claims that she supports some of the goals of autism advocates, but still advocates for medical research on autism." General concerns can be raised at WP:BLPN. The way to test whether an article satisfies notability is to nominate the article for deletion, see WP:AFD. Do not make accusations concerning other editors anywhere other than at a suitable noticeboard such as WP:ANI, and you must accompany any such accusations with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It is well known that the author has had POV issues. He even admits it on his user page, but calls it in the past. Blogs are absolutely not allowed. Edit request resurrected. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:19B3:D90E:D4F4:B09C (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)