Talk:Autism rights movement/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

References

I spent some time this evening reading the article and making what I hoped to be stylistic improvements. There is a significant amount of "claims" in the article, but they are not referenced. Agreed that there are references to outside links, but wouldn't it be better when making a statement to link to the person or group that made the statement or claim?

The differentiation between adult autistics and child autistics is clear, but the tension between the needs of the two groups could be more dramatic by defining the needs of the children. I think the needs of the adults appears as the current focus.

Having a nephew who is autistic, I find much of the claims of this article to be incredulous. Further, I taught two autistic teenagers during my college days and there is a marked differentiation between an autistic possessing high function and those without. This articles attempts to claim autistics are simply part of the diverse fabric of humanity. I accept this claim because they are first are foremost human, but I reject the claim that there is nothing to "cure". Tell that to a child who has been brought into the light of communicaton with others. If an individual can not communicate with others, they can not interact. Without interaction there is no social structure in which to participate. Providing some hard facts on the difficulties faced by autistics would provide a much needed dose of reality to this article. Storm Rider 07:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're assuming that learning to communicate is the same as getting "cured" of autism. That's clearly not the case. I don't think anyone's opposed to finding ways to teach autistics. Neurodivergent 01:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The controversy is not between autistic children and autistic adults, it is between people who believe the best thing for autistic people is a cure, and people who believe autism is fundamental to the identity. Q0 05:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
In reply to the statement, "This articles attempts to claim autistics are simply part of the diverse fabric of humanity," I don't think the article claims that autistics are simply part of the diverse fabric of humanity, what it claims is that there are autistic activists who see autistic people as a part of the diverse fabric of humanity. I think there is an important distiction between an article making a claim, and an article claiming that others have made a claim. Q0 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, there is no tension between adult and autistics who are children. Please Just because you find it incredulous it is your POV. Please try to NPOV. Have you seen www.gettingthetruthout.com  ?? There are low functioning non autistics. DO you need a cure because of that???? Alos if you want to be taken seriously use your real name JoeMele 21:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think Storm Rider's comments are RIGHT ON THE MONEY and they are basically the problems this article faces. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and THANKS A MILLION for the edits to the article. Please don't let anything turn you away :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and i had no problem with the edits except one. It is POV in the talk page JoeMele 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Joe, you reverted one of the style changes in the article; however, the way the sentence is worded is very clumsy and difficult to understand. Rather than revert could you please go back and attempt to reword the sentence rather than keep it as it is. I tried improve the sentence and I think I know what your objective is, but obviously wasn't successful. Please go and attempt more it more understandable. Also, the article's emphasis basically ignores the chanllenges of teaching autistic children. It is not POV to state the obvious and the organizations of autistic adults does not speak for the entire community, but they are voices among a choir of voices that all deserve to be heard. Do you really think this article presents the challenges autistic children encounter or the challenges their parents encounter to ensure they are provided the same rights as other children? I have no problems with the article other than it seems out of balance; I hardly view that as POV.

Finally, use my real name to be taken seriously??? Joey, I know very few people on WIKI that use their real name as their moniker. I, nor anyone I know on WIKI, perceive the use of moniker's as a loss of credibility. That is a personal issue that you have and you will have to deal with it. BUT, if you want my real name it is Michael and on WIKI I am known as, Storm Rider 02:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I note your concern that organizations of adult autistics dont speak for everyone is laughable. No one asks or tells this to NAAR or CAN or the hideoulsy name autism speaks where you have NTs and no autistics at all. This is about the challenges that both adults and children autistics face from a hostile NT world. JoeMele 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right, Joe. Storm, I agree that we need sourcing and (quite a lot of) NPOV. Another good step would probably be to cleanup the external links, which are currently largely blogs and non notable pro/anti cure sites. Lord Patrick 06:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This is such a great topic! My only objective is to attempt to make it a better article. I am not interested in taking sides; for me there are no sides and I don't find a right or wrong way to any position. On WIKI our objective is to present topics fairly in a balanced manner. You guys are obviously more invested in the topic than me, but from an outsider's my contention would still be that it is not balanced. Joe, I do not wish to offend you, but you might try to write the article from the "other" perspective. Storm Rider 00:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact it is not balanced is merely your POV and a few others. There is a movement on the Wiki to silence the autistic point of view so that only the curebies one exist.JoeMele 14:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop the Tern-like conspiracy theories, Joe. Oh, and I partially retract my statement on the external links, after seeing some of the cleanup Ryan has done. Lord Patrick 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Joe, you obviously have an axe to grind and are very committed to your POV. Whether an article is balanced or not is not a POV. You freely admit that there are two points of view: cure vs. there is nothing to cure. What is being asked of you as an editor is to review the article and present the other side of the argument. If you only state your side and allow only your POV, the article is necessaraily POV and does not meet WIKI's standards.
I am new to your article and freely admit that I am not studied in the latest arguments of today's autistic conflicts, but I am an editor and know when an article is not balanced. Also, I am not a part of some wicked cabal that is trying to silence the "autistic" POV. As I read the article, it is clear that that is the main POV being made and it is the "cure" arguments that are sorely lacking. Winning on WIKI is not getting your own way, but achieving balanced articles that take all POV's into account. Don't take things personally, it is ceratainly not meant to be so.
Joe, you have not yet re-edited the last change we discussed above. The sentence is not easily understood as it is currently written, will you please take another look at it ant attempt to make it make sense. Storm Rider 01:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The article probably does lack balance. I don't see any indications this is because of edit wars or because someone has decided to delete contributions that try to balance the article. It's simply that this article is likely being worked on by persons on the spectrum only, so that would be expected. If parents against the movement are able to add info that's citable and notable, then it will be left in the article I'm sure. One thing most autistics are not is intellectually dishonest. Neurodivergent 23:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Neurodivergent - I can tell you that it does lack balance somewhat most likely for the exact reason you stated (it is maintained by people on the spectrum) but it is an article that needs to be constructed from the POV of the autistic rights movement; so it is to be expected. One thing I found misleading:
Some parents of young children diagnosed autistic appear to be strongly against the movement's views, however. This is not entirely true - basically ALL parents of autistic children also want rights, respect, tolerance, inclusion and acceptance for their children. Maybe that sentence can be reworded some how. I believe the autistic rights movement is somehow making parents feel as if parents are uncaring or that it is bad to medically treat their child. Example - possibly feeling that the Dawson/ABA case could threaten their child's chance at obtaining therapy, etc.
"Some parents" here refers to Kit Weintraub and Lenny Schafer (and I'm sure there are others who feel exactly the way they do). "Strongly" doesn't quite capture it really. But I see your point. It shouldn't give the idea that a good number of parents are against the rights of autistics. Neurodivergent 14:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Many of the statements in the Misconceptions of autistic traits section comes across as a little offensive but I do understand that this is from the POV/feelings of the autism rights movement and is not making assumptions about parents/professionals. Becca77Talk/Email 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I just read the section. Seems fine to me. Which parts? Neurodivergent 14:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I think what I am trying to say is that this article is about the Autistic rights movement, so it has to be from their point of view, however the article has a harsh tone to it. I realize that some autistic people are embittered and that needs to be mentioned in the article, but someone who has no preconceived views on this topic would most likely read this article and come away feeling like the Autistic rights movement are angry / accusatory (please don't be offended). I agree that some parents are strongly against the movement but many are not - we don't want this article to offend them. I don't know how to explain it - but the impression I get from this article is that autistics do not like the parents of autistics and we need to fix that somehow. Some Wiki guidelines we should read over: Writing Unbiasedly, Assumptions and Objectivity. For example, the statement about parents has been changed to:
Some parents of young children diagnosed autistic appear to be strongly against the anti-cure and pro-neurodiversity perspectives in particular
and I think it would be more accurate to say:
Many autistics feel that parents of young autistic children are against the anti-cure and pro-neurodiversity perspectives.
Sites that promote autistic rights in a very non-offensive way that could possibly be added to the external links:
Celebrating Autistic Parents (autistic people who are parents)
Whirled Peas
My Little Rainman
My Window
Don't Mourn for Us
For Mothers of Autistic Children
What do you think about all this? Becca77Talk/Email 08:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know about some of those. I understand your point, being a parent myself. I should note that I don't "own" this article and I've only contributed a small portion of it. That said, this article does document a controversy and a fight that's been pretty nasty, so it's natural to find points and counter-points, things that might be considered hurtful. Neurodivergent 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Above NPOV dispute

I have attempted to resolve the above concerns of lack of balance with the controversy section. What I have added so far is only a start and I think more can be added to all sections. Q0 05:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Speculation of autism in famous people

I think it would be a good idea to merge that section into the Speculation of famous people who might have autism. I believe the content that talks about what people in the autism rights movement think of the speculation should stay in the autism rights movement article, but some of the details about who is speculated and the for/against arguments of them are more appropriate in the Speculation of famous people who might have autism article. I think the same thing was suggested in the peer review. Q0 07:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Autism Awareness Campaigns

I unmerged the content about the Autism Awareness Campaign UK and Autism Awareness Campaign Sri Lanka because they were merged without discussion, and it isn't appropriate to merge without discussion. In addition, someone else already unmerged AAC UK on its own page. There is a discussion going on now at Talk:Autism Awareness Campaign UK but merging shouldn't take place until the discussion has finished. These campaigns also appear to be part of a movement separate from the autism rights movement. Q0 08:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

These are the external links that were removed in this edit [1]. I am copying them here because I believe significant amounts of removed content should be brought to the talk page and someone might know another article that some of the external links can be moved to. Q0 17:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Activism (organizations)

Personal (activist) websites


Neurodiversity

Autistic culture

Graphics and humor

Signatures of Michelle Dawson's open letter

I wrote that Michelle Dawson's open letter received 52 signatures before the deadline, and someone else changed it to say 92. When I counted, I counted 52. I can see how I could miscount by one or two but I don't expect to be off by 40. Why was this changed? Q0 13:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I counted again and I counted about 92. I guess originally I only counted one column of the signatures. Q0 23:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality references

Something interesting I found which could be worked into this article or the ABA article is this: Homosexuality#Behaviour_modification. Neurodivergent 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay rights page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights has a box to the right that makes it easy to access other relevant pages. Can this page, or all autism pages, have such a box to make it simpler to find other relevant pages please. eg, community, culture, rights etc. I could make one myself, but I assume that we need agreement on the content and design. Something with the infinity sign would be nice, gay rights has the representative rainbow colours.

AmyNelson 22:22, 6 Feb 2006

There is one at Template:Autism rights movement. It can be modified if you think it needs to be changed in any way. Q0 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Q0. I think it needs to be at the top of the page the same as the gay rights one is. It could also be made more attractive as theres is, though that is just aesthetic. AmyNelson 22:22, 16 Feb 2006

Done - I think it turned out pretty well. I've done the same for some of our pro-cure pages as well - see Template:Autism_cure_movement. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Size

The size of the article is getting to be a bit long. The issues section is the longest, about 14k, and the controversy section is about 10k. The whole article right now is about 41k. I don't think anything needs to be done right away, but it might be necessary to keep an eye on it and move detail to new articles if it gets bigger. Q0 06:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what I'm going to do to resolve this to summarize both the issues and controversies sections in 3-5k each, and move the detail to new articles. Q0 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


What would those articles be?? JoeMele 01:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about calling the new articles Autism rights movement issues and Autism rights movement controversy. Q0 19:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Temple Grandin and Donna Williams

I wonder if Temple Grandin and Donna Williams (author) should be listed under the "Individuals" section of the article. I know that Temple Grandin has expressed views that autism can be something positive, and has expressed opposition to eliminating all aspects of autism, so Temple Grandin does have agreement with the base values of the movement. However, I don't recall her ever specifically identifying with the movement, so I don't know if it would be appropriate to list her or not. I don't know much about Donna Williams, but her name seems to come up a lot in discussions of autistic advocacy, but again, I don't know if she identifies as part of the movement or not. Q0 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The article about Temple Grandin states, "Grandin is considered a philosophical leader of both the animal welfare and autism advocacy movements," with autism advocacy linking to the autism rights movement article. Q0 13:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Donna Williams is mentioned in the History of ANI article, so I'd say yes. (I haven't gotten around to reading her books, however). Temple Grandin is, to some extent, an advocate of autistics. But her views are not necessarily pro-neurodiversity or anti-disorder. For example, she says drugs may be necessary. Neurodivergent 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think support of the use of drugs is necessarily anti-neurodiversity or pro-cure, since drugs are not a cure. I think it really depends on why Temple Grandin supports drugs and under what circumstances she supports them. Q0 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In case there are any doubts, see this. Neurodivergent 11:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Individuals

I am concerned with the following statement in the "Individuals" section of the article:

These persons are very respected in and out of the autistic community and some would even refer to them as the heroes of the movement.

It seems a bit strong, especially since it doesn't have a reference. I've seen most of the people on the list criticized even by those from within the movement. I think it might be best to reword the statement. Q0 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - I've taken a stab at it ("Some of the more prominant ones include") - the website section and that one should probably be merged and delisted though... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alleged insulting view of autism edit

I am concerned with the edit [2] to the alleged insulting view of autism section. The edit moved a large amount of content to the caption of the ribbon. I think significant amounts of content is better in the text of the article and not as a caption. I think it really seems best to keep captions of images small. In addition, the edit changed "Autistics.Org has a button that reads "I am not a puzzle, I am a person" to "However, some autistics ... believe they are not a puzzle to be solved but a real person instead." The original version attributes the claim about autistics being people not puzzles to Autistics.Org and the edit attributes it to some autistics. I really think the original version is better because it attributes who is making a claim instead of simply saying that some people have made the claim. I also think the following removed statements should be added back into the article:

  • Neurodiversity.Com has a page titled Offended Yet? "Autistic" as an Insult and Insults Against Autistic Persons [3] which is a collection of websites that Neurodiversity.Com feels is insulting to autistic people.
  • Oddizms has created a rainbow moebius ring to symbol autism awareness and replace the puzzle piece ribbon.

The movement is largely Internet based so I think reporting what these websits have done is noteworthy enough for an article. I am open to rewording those statements if necessary. Q0 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you could do "some autistics such as those from autistics.org" etc. for the ribbon. Also, about the oddizms thing you really need to explain why their version is important and not "yet another replacement" of the ribbon in the first place - the key thing here is importance. Also, I think maybe we should use the "alternative" ribbon by oddisms instead if it really is the chosen replacement as it probably adds more to the article. Finally, I'm not sure the list of "insulting sites" is appropriate here as it is a bit of a hitlist of a partisian group.... if you do really want it in there it would be better as an aside ("the movement fights against an insulting.... , and websites such as those listed as neurodiversity.com[link].") I really think it is good as is, however (in relation to the insulting sites thing). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a note saying it is Autistics.Org that made the "I am not a puzzle, I am a person" statement and I have added back the information about oddizms's rainbow ring with a quote that gives the intent of the ring. I hope that by explaining the intent of the rainbow ring can help with this issue and explain its significance. I am willing to leave the page from neurodiversity.com out. Q0 03:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PERSONS ON THE SPECTRUM

I was featured in an article for Newsday Nov 2000. As a Long Island Innovator with my picture. It talked about my software and my company. A person called brossow is choosing to ignore that. Afraid of the anti-cure perspectiveJoeMele 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of your perspective, Joe. I'm offended by your insistence on being listed as "notable" when in fact you're not. It would be bad enough if someone else had added your name to various pages, but it's YOU who keep adding it back. That's simply not the Wikipedia way. It's nothing personal, since I don't know you, and it certainly has nothing to do with your perspective. It's simply about Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BIO) for determining notability. Leading a small, local protest or having a single phrase quoted in a newspaper article isn't sufficient; otherwise, hundreds of thousands of Americans alone, not to mention the imaginable numbers worldwide, would have their names on Wikipedia. And Joe, the supposed article about your software and your company from nearly five and a half years ago simply has no bearing on your noteworthiness with regard to the autism rights movement. Again, it's nothing personal but this simply isn't the place to stroke your ego. I'm truly sorry if you are offended, but it's "just business" in keeping Wikipedia moving forward. No offense is intended. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

tough it stays JoeMele

See WP:OWN. Also see WP:3RR. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then what criteria are you using for singer or sinclair or baggs?? All very important peopl in the next civil rights movement. I suspect your motivation is the fear of aspergian identity and the anti-cure perspective than anything else. This is a fight that we must win our continued survial as a people depend on it.JoeMele 04:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your views on autism have NOTHING to do with my edits, Joe. You only came onto my radar when you added yourself to the Stony Brook page as a notable alum; quick research showed that you're not and consequently I removed your name from the list. My interest was piqued and I subsequently found you listed on this page as notable as well so, again, you were removed. It has nothing to do whatsoever with your activities ... in fact, it's the lack thereof that drove my edits. You may cast yourself as a freedom fighter for aspie rights, and that's wonderful and I wish you nothing but the best in your efforts, but the bottom line is that you don't meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Joe, try not to take this personally. Wikipedia's notability standards for living people require that people mentioned should be widely recognizable, be widely published, or had a major impact in their field. It is indeed an honor to have been praised by Newsday, but that's just not broad enough. Chin up, Joe: with the dedication and heart that you have, I have no doubt that you can have a major impact in time. – ClockworkSoul 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pages like WP:BIO provide guidelines for notability for a person to have their own article. The issue of Joe Mele's notability is to include him in the "Individuals" section, not to have his own article. Is the same criteria used for notability of a person's article the same as the criteria for being mentioned in another article? Q0 12:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO provides Wikipedia's definition of notability. Joe doesn't meet those criteria and whether it is in an individual article on Joe himself or inclusion in a list of supposedly notable individuals in a larger article, he in no way, shape, or form meets any standards of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. Joe was presented as notable on Wikipedia; by Wikipedia standards he is not notable. IMHO, of course. ⇒ BRossow T/C 12:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAutism_rights_movement_Archive_3_64b2.html"