Talk:Cripple punk

The inclusion of mental disabilities within cripple punk

All current sources listed for the page, tumblr (from which the founder of the cripple punk movement posted the list of ideals, listed as source 6) and news and other articles, expressly state that cripple punk is expressly for the physically disabled. No where in any source currently does it state that mentally disabled people are included in the movement (however many sources do state that the movement respects the intersectionality of mental and physical disabilities). Due to this i feel that repeated removal of this fact from the wikipedia article is incorrect. If you can find sources that dispute this fact feel free to add them, however at current, there are none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeTheFae (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

To these claims:

Source 1 quotes, "Cripple Punk- also known as cpunk) A movement that is exclusively by the physically disabled for the physically disabled, started on tumblr"

Now that in itself is a quote, however other places in source one state "able-bodied", which is a term that does not mean "not disabled", but rather "not physically disabled",

Source 4 quotes: "In the beginning, the community was geared towards people whose disabilities required a cane, walker, or wheelchair. However, it eventually spread to incorporate all sorts of physical disabilities. The community also has conversations across social media platforms about mental health issues, especially on how those issues affect physical disabilities"

This again refers to the intersectionality of mental health in cpunk, not the inclusion of such

Source 5 quotes: "It was on Tumblr that I discovered the term Cripple Punk. My first encounter was in the form of a manifesto on the blog crpl-pnk.tumblr, a collection of points outlining core principles: “cripple punk is exclusively by the physically disabled for the physically disabled”, “cripple punk rejects pity, inspiration porn, & all other forms of ableism” and, most importantly to me at the time, “cripple punk fights internalised ableism & fully supports those struggling with it”." This one needs no explanation. BeeTheFae (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@BeeTheFae: sorry for the late reply. Let's go through these sources.

Source one includes two quotes, as "Tumblr doesn't have a definition for their tags". The first is from Urban Dictionary, and the second is pulled from the tumblr post that I removed as a source for this article.

Urban Dictionary, per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources and their reliability, isn't considered a reliable source, as it consists solely of user-generated content. (You can find the discussions of its reliability most recently here.)

Tumblr is self-generated content, but it falls under Wikipedia's social media as a source policy. This policy is that:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

"[...] 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Though the cripple punk movement began on Tumblr, we can't base the article solely on sources whose only qualities are quoting directly from it with no other explanation or expansion. I'd expect to see things like other activists talking about the movement, quotes and interviews, maybe news coverage of protests linked to it; source one has none of these.

Source one doesn't pronounce judgement on the two quotes in its content or expand on their points. It ends after these quotes with "I know not everyone will agree with this movement. But I think it is amazing. You don’t have to agree with everything a hashtag or an internet movement brings forth, but as a means of finding something or someone you can relate to; I think it is wonderful. What hashtags or internet movements are you a fan of?".

This would be a great source for the notability of cripple punk, though not necessarily as a source for expanding on its beliefs and how it interacts with people - it's more a note of its existence.

However, since we're specifically looking for the reliability of cripple punk only including the physically disabled, we can't use this source to support that claim - as the 'evidence' within source one is taken from an unreliable source (yes, able-bodied generally means not physically disabled, but Urban Dictionary is not reliable) and a source we can't rest an entire claim on (Tumblr). We could state that the original creator of the movement expressed that it should be for physically disabled people only, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's what the movement entails today.

Source two does mention physical disabilities primarily, but nowhere does it state that the movement is solely for the physically-disabled. Mention of mental disabilities are omitted, but not directly excluded; therefore, this doesn't support that the movement is solely for the physically disabled.

Source three is the original post; it's a sentence long but states nothing about either physical or mental disabilities.

Source four is the original cripple punk principles post. Again, this falls under WP:SOCIALMEDIA; we can use it as a source of information about itself, providing the entire article doesn't rest on it. It would be useful to outline the original principles, as defined by Trewhella. However, this post also states that "cripple punk respects intersections of race, culture, gender, sexual/romantic orientation, size, intersex status, mental illness/neuroatypical status, survivor status, etc.". So, we can say that the original principles did exclude mental disabilities, but that intersectionality was part of the concept; this says nothing as to how it has developed in the modern day.

Source five again quotes the original principles post, but it doesn't mention mental disabilities at all, and outside of quotes, doesn't pass comment on the exclusion or inclusion of mental disabilities.

Source six is the BBC article, not the list of principles. It states that "One of the main things Cripple Punk aims to strike out against is the 'Good Cripple Mythos': the polarising idea that physically disabled people are either inspirational or to be pitied." But this is one of the main things – the other "main things" aren't listed – the article doesn't mention mental disabilities, and this sentence speaks only of the Good Cripple Mythos.

I'm sorry, but none of these sources, outside of the principles of the original post, pass their own judgement, expansion or comment directly on the inclusion or exclusion of mental disabilities; they just quote from the original principles post. It may sound like a given that because source X says X, and source Y quotes from X, then source Y means X, but it's not. Wikipedia isn't an academic paper, and we can't look at the sources we have and say "if source X says X, and source Y says Y, then by definition, Z". We cannot roll them together based on what the original creator defined and what some sources don't mention, as that is WP:SYNTHESIS.

It cannot be stated, with the sources we have, that the movement excludes mental disabilities, as, per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, this is resting a particular claim on primarily on a self-published social media source.

What I would say is that we could confidently state something around the following under the #origins section:

The cripple punk tag was started in 2014 by a Tumblr user, Tyler Trewhella, who posted a picture standing with a cane and a lit cigarette, with the caption "cripple punk" layered over the top, and the description "i'm starting a movement."[3] The post would go on to be liked and reblogged by over 40,000 people, with the caption being used as a tag to boost other posts and images of disabled people going against the typical perception of people with disabilities.[6] In a post made in 2014, Trewhella stated that "cripple punk is exclusively by the physically disabled for the physically disabled", though they noted that "cripple punk respects intersections of race, culture, gender, sexual/romantic orientation, size, intersex status, mental illness/neuroatypical status, survivor status, etc."

This makes no comment on who the movement excludes or includes in the present-day, avoids WP:SYNTHESIS and doesn't extrapolate out into other sources that only quote from these principles without expanding upon them. What I would also suggest is that if this inclusion was okay'd, any mention of what the movement does or doesn't include be removed from the lead, and instead simply left as "disabled", with no mention or 'physical' or 'mental'. This respects the fact that none of the sources save the original principles post make a statement on this, and is probably the best path forwards for the time being.

At some point, I will have a look around for more sources on the movement when I have the time. I know this isn't exactly the best resolution, but based on the sources we've got, I believe this is the best path forwards for now.

If you'd still like to discuss this, there's a number of avenues I'd suggest that would be helpful, and would probably be more fruitful than waiting for me to respond, as I'm just one guy with not much time. These are:

- WP:THIRD, Wikipedia's third opinion request function, where a literal third opinion can be asked for;

- WP:NORN, Wikipedia's 'No original research' Noticeboard – this may sound drastic and aggressive, but it'd be my first port of call for asking other editors about what constitutes improper synthesis and original research; even experienced editors visit the boards to ask about their own work commonly, even when no other editor is involved in the issue;

- WP:RFCOPEN, which details how to open a Request for Comment on an article's Talk page, in this case this one.

All three are good options. For more general questions, or any questions, really, WP:TEAHOUSE is also a good port of call. I've used it many times.

I hope my going through the sources makes sense, and that this explains my points well.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 20:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to offer my services as a third opinion.

As the movement was created by and for the physically disabled (as stated in the principles of cripple punk) I believe it would not only be dishonouring the memory of Tyler Trewhella but the entire c-punk community to not specify the movements aim of uplifting specifically the physically disabled, especially based on sources and articles written by able-bodied and non physically disabled people.

If the article was written by an able bodied person then their should be no expansion on the principles or message (one of the principles is "able bodied people wishing to spread the message may only ever amplify the voices of the disabled"). None of the provided sources include the mentally disabled in the movement, only that cripple punk entails respecting intersecting identities. In my opinion the only reasonable way forward is to specify that this is a movement solely for the physically disabled community as this is not only the most widely accepted view but also there is no source that says otherwise.

I would also suggest the possibility of starting pages about the neuro-punk and mad-punk movements as they were created in turn by and for the mentally disabled and mentally ill communities. Joinmeinthebog (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Joinmeinthebog: this isn't an issue of being 'respectful' or 'disrespectful' to Trewhella's memory, this is an issue of accuracy of sourcing. Wikipedia isn't here to stake claims on what a movement 'should' or 'should not' be, based on what its founder set out.

"If the article was written by an able bodied person then their should be no expansion on the principles or message (one of the principles is "able bodied people wishing to spread the message may only ever amplify the voices of the disabled")." – this isn't how Wikipedia works. I understand that editors unconnected to an issue may struggle to grasp as closely what the issues speaks of, but if we put up rules on who could or could not edit based on identity, we'd never get anything done. Wikipedia does have a large problem of diversity in its editing base, but we are an encyclopedia anyone can edit for a reason. We do sometimes place discretionary sanctions on articles, but this is never, ever based on an editor's qualities.

And, as respectfully as possible, I was hoping for a third opinion from a more experienced editor who has dealt with these issues before. I will be crossposting this discussion to WP:NORN, as I think we need input from more experienced editors.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with the exclusion of Tumblr because it actually isn't the source, the founder and his principles is the source. The principles function as a primary source self published by the founder, and Tumblr simply functions as a hosting service. The founder could have posted the principles on any service. The fact they happen to be on Tumblr is meaningless. Huggums537 (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Okay, that makes sense. But I believe the rest of the issue still needs addressing, and consensus hashing out on a different board. I did post this to WP:NORN (here), but it didn't receive a response; I may try posting it to another board as a next step.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 21:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You should be aware a discussion has been started here as well. Also, I think you have some good ideas about how we should include the information. Huggums537 (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)