Talk:Autism Speaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

I'm not an experienced editor, but I believe the last edit under "Controversies" would violate NPOV and also is uncited? Aoibheannniamh 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is no citation and this is a violation of NPOV, so I removed it. Aoibheannniamh 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrities/ Jon Stewart/ mercury & autism controversies

The controversy section, while currently NPOV (good) is also woefully minimal. I'd add more but I'm sleepy.  :) The not-merely-unproven-but-repeatedly-disproven "mercury in thimerosal causes autism" controversy is highly topical, and in the news today. The settlement a couple weeks ago of a case that was to be a test case before the Autism Omnibus quasijudicial proceedings has stirred a great deal of interest.

On another topic, I see that Jon Stewart and other celebrities, including Sarah Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel, are attached to an upcoming charity event (overbooked, too-many stars, something along those lines) for Autism Speaks. This may be recurring, and is probably noteworthy. Eh Nonymous (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General note

As a general note, posts from online forums are rarely acceptable as reliable sources for encyclopedic content. Articles should be based on verifiable information from reliable secondary sources. If there's a question about using an online forum as a source in a specific context, please seek input here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The burden of proof is on those wishing to include material. Hence, I'll be moving unreliably sourced controversial material from the article to this page. If better sources are found, it can be re-introduced. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As a result of all this two sources in the article were marked as questionable, and I removed them. I removed one of the newly-unsourced claims (couldn't find a reliable source for it), and rewrote the other claim to rely on the New Scientist article, which is reliable. Eubulides (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved from article

Blogs are not a reliable source. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing was terrible: A said B. C did D. A is responsible for D. Not acceptable, especially when names are named. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The scene occurred in a heavily publicized and publicly viewable video that millions of people have seen. Are you saying it's not verifiable? Perl (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally it created a backlash from the autistic community. Perl (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that all I removed? No, it wasn't. I removed a series of unrelated snippets which were carefully combined so as to seemingly associate a quite unconnected person with the death of a child. Argument by innuendo is entirely unacceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, the scene itself is notable and is the main reason for the controversy about the film. I added a sentence noting that controversy and citing a reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)