This page 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. |
I've redirected the former ethical challenges to autism treatment main page, over to this page, in the section of the same name. The previous page wasn't about ethics, was virtually unsourced, contained considerable WP:OR, and was basically empty once these issues were addressed by removing the OR and unsourced text. I've no prejudice against re-spawning the page, but as is, the current page already has a section and it's very short.
I also removed the mention of the Auton v BC in the same section, since it's about a court case that's attempting to force the government of British Columbia to fund autism treatment. If Michelle Dawson has a challenge, that should be sourced independent of the court case. WLU ( talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking through this article -- and according to wikipedia standards, its rubbish!! We need to source these things, or remove them...I'm putting tags throughout to point you to where you'll need sources. After a few days, I'll start relieving you of the duty by removing the unsourced content. Please hurry -- that way we don't have to do fun reverts to put your sources in. Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 07:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Anytime public/government funds are used to research, develop, analyze anything, ALL people are burdended with the expense. These are taxpayer dollars. A state or federally funded university/college that does research costs the taxpayer for any research that they do. Autism research specifically is not being funded soley by private industry. It is being funded by state and federal government, burdening all of us with its expense. (E Gleason 17 July 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.125.26 ( talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The cost on society is a proven fact -- treatment of those with autism is costing tax payers X amount of dollars...this sentence seems to try to represent that in a different light...I'm not saying we shouldn't support those with autism...but I am saying that indicating that a 'typical' person also incurs these costs is a falsehood...it would need to be phrased as a person receiving governmental support or somesuch...please check this again and reword it to be accurate. Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent>If our tax monies are being spent on it, it is a cost of that condition. I think a better argument would be that while folks with autism may cost XX folks that have mental retardation cost XX and folks that are neurotypical but unemployed cost XX amount. I think that this argument would be more fruitful and logical. I think that the quote, however, is arguing that without support, folks with autism cost XX amount...but if we provide early intervention for XXX amount, we will save XX amount in the future...again, all speculation -- but my 2 cents. Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent>I'm having a really hard time finding reference to the autistic rights movement outside of Wikipedia...all that neurodiversity.com is a clearinghouse of links...these links comprise multiple views (including autism as a disorder and autism as a gift)...is there anywhere that claims to posits the autism rights movement goals? Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok -- so I'm going to try to source somse of this myself...but am uncertain -- diversity.com seems very POV...however, the autism rights movement is a point of view -- so as long as I indicate that 'Diversity.com states, etc.etc.' and source it from there -- is that good enuff? Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured. The ARM advocate a greater tolerance of autistic behaviors, teaching autistic individuals skills that allow them to better cope with the non-autistic world rather than forcing them behave like their neurotypical peers, and objects to goals like extinguishing harmless stimming, forcing eye contact and breaking routines.
The ARM is controversial among those whose lives are affected by autism. Objections to the movement include an overstatement of the 'gifts' associated with autism and the movement's potential impact on the funding for autism research. Parents of children with autism state that the therapies used to 'cure' autism help in caring for children with aggressive or dangerous behaviors, and that autism exacts a toll on the entire family. These parents have also criticized the movement for representing a minority of high-functioning autistics rather than the majority of lower-functioning individuals who comprise the bulk of those diagnosed with autism and Asperger syndrome.
The use of the Internet has made it possible for autistics to present their perspective when they do not have the communication skills to do so offline. These autistics do not desire a cure, but rather to be given opportunities to use their autistic strengths to to cope with their autistic difficulties.
I put a copy of this page in my user space at User:Q0/sandbox, removing unsourced material. I didn't want to use the subpage on this talk page because I didn't want to disrupt what someone might be using that page for, so I used my user space to make sure I didn't disrupt anything. Q0 ( talk) 21:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I archived the talk page, since it is well over 32K (53K)? A lot of discussion happened a few weeks ago, and I didn't want to interrupt that, but it has been a bit of time since anything had been added to those discussions, so I wondered if now might be a good time to archive. Q0 ( talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is written like a
personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (December 2007) |
Some in the autistic rights movement believe the status quo of autism issues focuses too much on children and parents, and tends to exclude autistic adults. They point to various autism organizations like Autism Society of America that have a child as a logo and they feel parents have more power than autistic adults in autism organizations. Michelle Dawson believes that the Autism Society of Canada excludes autistic adults. [2] Autistic people oppose this because they feel autistics, not non-autistic parents, should be the primary focus of autism organizations. They also believe there are more services for autistic children and their parents than for autistic adults, and some advocates of adult inclusion believe that some services and resources for autistic children are actually more for the parents.
Autistic adults claim that the definition afforded in an autism diagnosis is designed for children and not for adults, which makes the parameters unworkable and difficult in maintaining or obtaining a proper diagnosis. dubious Because people change as they grow to adulthood, they may no longer fit the official model of an autistic individual. In addition, autism diagnosis may be taken less seriously when it is made in for an adult rather than for a child, the idea being that if a person were really autistic, it would have been noticed in childhood. Some autistic adults respond to this by citing the relative ignorance about autism on the part of professionals and the general public, even ten years ago, compared to what is known in the present, and that autistic children were often misdiagnosed as learning-disabled, lazy, or as having a thought disorder. Even in the 1980s, professionals specializing in autism contributed to a peer-reviewed journal called the Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia.
The autism rights movement desires more services and accommodations for autistic adults. They also desire autistic adults to have equal opportunity in employment and in education.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The following statement has been tagged as needing to be clarified:
This is a version of the following statement which used to be in the article, that I edited for length:
It is from the reference, http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html mostly in the paragraph that starts with, "The messages about how different various ..." Q0 ( talk) 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't yet figured out what it's trying to say, but I'll put the original text here (from autistics.org, which isn't really a good source, doesn't Harmon or a more reliable source have something better?) while I try to decipher it:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What happens in debates about the movement is a critic says, "You are different from my child because you can do X and Y and my child cannot," and a supporter of the movement says, "Actually, I can't do X, and even though I can do Y as an adult, I could not do Y as a child." I think the statement is basically trying to describe things like that. As for finding a better source, I did look at User:Elmindreda/Autistic_rights_sources a bit and found [2] which says:
I think this is somewhat similar to the statement in the autistics.org page. Q0 ( talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following section from the article because it is mostly unsourced. I replaced it with the section titled "autistic traits". Q0 ( talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Some autistic rights activists believe some characteristics described as being autistic traits are actually misconceptions [3] and desire to educate the population about what they believe are the real reasons these alleged misconceptions occur.
Michelle Dawson has disputed the belief that 75% of autistic people have low intelligence. [4]
As of 2006, some people have begun to subscribe to the belief that autistic people lack a " theory of mind"; that is, they are unaware that others do not necessarily think or know the same things that they(autistics) do. Some autistics have suggested that they are only perceived to lack a theory of mind because autistic people do not necessarily communicate with others in the same ways people who are not autistic do. This would prevent others' knowing whether autistics have a theory of mind or not. Some autistics who have difficulty with sensory input might be less likely to be able to interpret other people's thoughts and knowledge through observation. Some autistics have observed that non-autistics are insensitive to their perspectives, and write parodies based on this, addressing non-autism as a mental disorder characterized by lack of "theory of other minds". [5] [6]
Although some people believe autistic people have no
emotions and no
sense of humor{{
Fact}}
(despite the existence of comedians with the condition),{{
Fact}}
some autistic people reject this and report that they do experience a range of emotions, and indeed have a tremendous sense of humour, but just one that a neurotypical cannot relate to—just as the autistic cannot relate to the neurotypical's humour.{{
Fact}}
This again comes down to a majority perception of 'the norm', when there may not be one. Autistics with Asperger's Syndrome may actually be more emotionally sensitive than a neurotypical, but because of different expressions of emotion, they often come across as rude, abrupt and emotionless. The perception that autistics are emotionless may come from the fact that autistics may be more likely to keep their emotions to themselves—for example, not laughing when they find something funny. Autistics may also have different emotional reactions from what people without autism may expect. Noting a different reaction than they were expecting may prompt people without autism to perceive a general lack of emotion in autistic people. Autistics may also be amused by things that non-autistics would not find funny, such as absurd,
Monty Python-type humor such as eating roads or flowers growing on a
telephone.
Lenny Schafer said that the autism-like lack of empathy of anti-cure activists prevent them from seeing what is in the hearts of pro-cure advocates. [7]
I removed the following paragraph from the article because it is mostly unsourced and not relavent to the autism rights movement. It would fit better in the Rain Man article (if sourced). Q0 ( talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
Fact}}
A countercriticism of this Rain Man defence is that the film was clearly made at a time when understanding of autism was less developed, and is not reflective of the reality.{{
Fact}}
Raymond Babbitt is not considered high-functioning by people in the autism rights movement,{{
Fact}}
who point out that Albert Einstein may have met the diagnostic criteria for high-functioning autism.I noticed that someone put a "citation needed" flag in the intro. The intro used to have citations in it, but was since rewritten without citations. From looking at some of the past discussion on this talk page, it looks like it was felt that the intro does not need citations. Should the intro be cited? Q0 ( talk) 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the "opposition to eliminating autism" section was tagged as having weasel words, and that someone removed a "weasely" sentence in this edit [3]. Although I think there are some more mild weasel words still in the section, I think the tag might have mostly been referring to the removed sentence. Is the tag still needed? Also, the whole article is tagged, so unless that section is worse than the rest of the article, it seems more appropriate not to tag that section. Q0 ( talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to look for a source for this statement:
In this source [4] I found the following statements:
and found the following statements from this source [5]:
I have thought about rewording the statement in the article based on those two sources, but I'm not sure how to do it with some of the emotional language used in the sources. If I were to write, "Some critics consider Michelle Dawson to be their number one public enemy and think she is trying to destroy their children," but that seems a bit too loaded and I'd have WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns about it. I havn't found any less loaded language in the references that cites the needed sentence, but am not sure how to tone down the language while not misrepresenting the content of the sources. Q0 ( talk) 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This article contains statements that have what might be called "weasel words" such as "some people say ...," however, a number of these are sourced. Is there a problem with wording like this when the statements are sourced? Some examples of these statements are the following:
Q0 ( talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following section because it is largely uncited and because controversy sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. When the article was tagged as having a controversy/criticism section, I moved a lot of the material to other sections, but there was still a lot of uncited material that remained. Q0 ( talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The movement has been criticized by autism professionals and parents of autistic children who believe the goals of the movement will not help autistic children. There are some critics of the movement who still support some of the movement's goals despite opposing other goals.
Further responses of the movement can be summarized as follows: citation needed
The debate is ongoing and critics have responded to the autism rights movement's responses to their original criticisms, and the autism rights movement in turn has responded to those.
The autism rights movement and its debates were collaborated online due much in part to usenet's alt.support.autism group (groups.google.com/group/alt.support.autism) which had autistics and people without autism on various sides of rights, cure and treatment issues. Due to the lack of moderation and what they perceive to be the abuse of several autistics on that forum by possible cranks, many have taken up blogging in more moderated communities. Much of the current thought has evolved over time by discussions in these communities and groups. Over time, some internet meme has also resulted because of the autism rights movement, much of which is tongue in cheek criticism of the self-diagnosis issue.
Some of the debate continues offline as well. Autistics and people without autism of all ages participating in the autism rights movement may also be expressly excluded from their local autism organizations. Many have, however formed well-connected offline chapters to address the lack of this inclusion by some cure-oriented autism communities. Some groups, however, have been making efforts to include such families, groups and individuals in the movement to increase the level of communication and create mutual understanding.
Some of the most critical pro-cure advocates are non-autistic relatives of autistics, e.g. those represented by FAAAS, Families of Adults Affected by Asperger Syndrome. [8] Many such organizations have characterized those in the anti-cure movement as being mostly an adult with Asperger Syndrome phenomenon and object to the anti-cure message as a result of their own personal perspectives of living with autistic adults.
There are disagreements within the movement as well. Some autistics would prefer autism to be seen as a disability, meaning that it would have a status similar to blindness or deafness. Within this context, autism rights would fit within the broader movement of disability rights and autistic culture would be analogous to deaf culture. Those supporting this view are concerned that if autism was to be viewed as simply a way of being or as a non-disabled minority group, the needs some autistics have for aid and assistance would be overlooked.
Setting up merge proposal to merge Autism Awareness Campaign UK to Autism rights movement SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears more and more that this article is espousing one biased POV on autism rights. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've cleaned it up, it appears notable enough that it doesn't need to be merged here, but it does need to be mentioned in this article; if some types of autism rights advocacy is left out of this article, this article is POV. It looks like we have a setup on Wiki where all autism groups are classified (by what reliable source?) as either curebies or not: {{ autism rights movement}} and {{ autism cure movement}}. In the absence of reliable sources, this POV needs to be cleaned up and those templates possibly deleted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this article be renamed. I had thought about doing this in the past, but recently I believe it has become problematic. I see that the
gay rights movement has also been changed to
LGBT social movements. I don't know if this should be a model for how this article should be renamed.
Q0 (
talk) 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I retract my suggestion to rename the article. The discussion has gotten too confusing for me. Q0 ( talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This page 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. |
I've redirected the former ethical challenges to autism treatment main page, over to this page, in the section of the same name. The previous page wasn't about ethics, was virtually unsourced, contained considerable WP:OR, and was basically empty once these issues were addressed by removing the OR and unsourced text. I've no prejudice against re-spawning the page, but as is, the current page already has a section and it's very short.
I also removed the mention of the Auton v BC in the same section, since it's about a court case that's attempting to force the government of British Columbia to fund autism treatment. If Michelle Dawson has a challenge, that should be sourced independent of the court case. WLU ( talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking through this article -- and according to wikipedia standards, its rubbish!! We need to source these things, or remove them...I'm putting tags throughout to point you to where you'll need sources. After a few days, I'll start relieving you of the duty by removing the unsourced content. Please hurry -- that way we don't have to do fun reverts to put your sources in. Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 07:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Anytime public/government funds are used to research, develop, analyze anything, ALL people are burdended with the expense. These are taxpayer dollars. A state or federally funded university/college that does research costs the taxpayer for any research that they do. Autism research specifically is not being funded soley by private industry. It is being funded by state and federal government, burdening all of us with its expense. (E Gleason 17 July 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.125.26 ( talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The cost on society is a proven fact -- treatment of those with autism is costing tax payers X amount of dollars...this sentence seems to try to represent that in a different light...I'm not saying we shouldn't support those with autism...but I am saying that indicating that a 'typical' person also incurs these costs is a falsehood...it would need to be phrased as a person receiving governmental support or somesuch...please check this again and reword it to be accurate. Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent>If our tax monies are being spent on it, it is a cost of that condition. I think a better argument would be that while folks with autism may cost XX folks that have mental retardation cost XX and folks that are neurotypical but unemployed cost XX amount. I think that this argument would be more fruitful and logical. I think that the quote, however, is arguing that without support, folks with autism cost XX amount...but if we provide early intervention for XXX amount, we will save XX amount in the future...again, all speculation -- but my 2 cents. Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent>I'm having a really hard time finding reference to the autistic rights movement outside of Wikipedia...all that neurodiversity.com is a clearinghouse of links...these links comprise multiple views (including autism as a disorder and autism as a gift)...is there anywhere that claims to posits the autism rights movement goals? Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok -- so I'm going to try to source somse of this myself...but am uncertain -- diversity.com seems very POV...however, the autism rights movement is a point of view -- so as long as I indicate that 'Diversity.com states, etc.etc.' and source it from there -- is that good enuff? Josh.Pritchard.DBA ( talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured. The ARM advocate a greater tolerance of autistic behaviors, teaching autistic individuals skills that allow them to better cope with the non-autistic world rather than forcing them behave like their neurotypical peers, and objects to goals like extinguishing harmless stimming, forcing eye contact and breaking routines.
The ARM is controversial among those whose lives are affected by autism. Objections to the movement include an overstatement of the 'gifts' associated with autism and the movement's potential impact on the funding for autism research. Parents of children with autism state that the therapies used to 'cure' autism help in caring for children with aggressive or dangerous behaviors, and that autism exacts a toll on the entire family. These parents have also criticized the movement for representing a minority of high-functioning autistics rather than the majority of lower-functioning individuals who comprise the bulk of those diagnosed with autism and Asperger syndrome.
The use of the Internet has made it possible for autistics to present their perspective when they do not have the communication skills to do so offline. These autistics do not desire a cure, but rather to be given opportunities to use their autistic strengths to to cope with their autistic difficulties.
I put a copy of this page in my user space at User:Q0/sandbox, removing unsourced material. I didn't want to use the subpage on this talk page because I didn't want to disrupt what someone might be using that page for, so I used my user space to make sure I didn't disrupt anything. Q0 ( talk) 21:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I archived the talk page, since it is well over 32K (53K)? A lot of discussion happened a few weeks ago, and I didn't want to interrupt that, but it has been a bit of time since anything had been added to those discussions, so I wondered if now might be a good time to archive. Q0 ( talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is written like a
personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (December 2007) |
Some in the autistic rights movement believe the status quo of autism issues focuses too much on children and parents, and tends to exclude autistic adults. They point to various autism organizations like Autism Society of America that have a child as a logo and they feel parents have more power than autistic adults in autism organizations. Michelle Dawson believes that the Autism Society of Canada excludes autistic adults. [2] Autistic people oppose this because they feel autistics, not non-autistic parents, should be the primary focus of autism organizations. They also believe there are more services for autistic children and their parents than for autistic adults, and some advocates of adult inclusion believe that some services and resources for autistic children are actually more for the parents.
Autistic adults claim that the definition afforded in an autism diagnosis is designed for children and not for adults, which makes the parameters unworkable and difficult in maintaining or obtaining a proper diagnosis. dubious Because people change as they grow to adulthood, they may no longer fit the official model of an autistic individual. In addition, autism diagnosis may be taken less seriously when it is made in for an adult rather than for a child, the idea being that if a person were really autistic, it would have been noticed in childhood. Some autistic adults respond to this by citing the relative ignorance about autism on the part of professionals and the general public, even ten years ago, compared to what is known in the present, and that autistic children were often misdiagnosed as learning-disabled, lazy, or as having a thought disorder. Even in the 1980s, professionals specializing in autism contributed to a peer-reviewed journal called the Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia.
The autism rights movement desires more services and accommodations for autistic adults. They also desire autistic adults to have equal opportunity in employment and in education.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The following statement has been tagged as needing to be clarified:
This is a version of the following statement which used to be in the article, that I edited for length:
It is from the reference, http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html mostly in the paragraph that starts with, "The messages about how different various ..." Q0 ( talk) 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't yet figured out what it's trying to say, but I'll put the original text here (from autistics.org, which isn't really a good source, doesn't Harmon or a more reliable source have something better?) while I try to decipher it:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What happens in debates about the movement is a critic says, "You are different from my child because you can do X and Y and my child cannot," and a supporter of the movement says, "Actually, I can't do X, and even though I can do Y as an adult, I could not do Y as a child." I think the statement is basically trying to describe things like that. As for finding a better source, I did look at User:Elmindreda/Autistic_rights_sources a bit and found [2] which says:
I think this is somewhat similar to the statement in the autistics.org page. Q0 ( talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following section from the article because it is mostly unsourced. I replaced it with the section titled "autistic traits". Q0 ( talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Some autistic rights activists believe some characteristics described as being autistic traits are actually misconceptions [3] and desire to educate the population about what they believe are the real reasons these alleged misconceptions occur.
Michelle Dawson has disputed the belief that 75% of autistic people have low intelligence. [4]
As of 2006, some people have begun to subscribe to the belief that autistic people lack a " theory of mind"; that is, they are unaware that others do not necessarily think or know the same things that they(autistics) do. Some autistics have suggested that they are only perceived to lack a theory of mind because autistic people do not necessarily communicate with others in the same ways people who are not autistic do. This would prevent others' knowing whether autistics have a theory of mind or not. Some autistics who have difficulty with sensory input might be less likely to be able to interpret other people's thoughts and knowledge through observation. Some autistics have observed that non-autistics are insensitive to their perspectives, and write parodies based on this, addressing non-autism as a mental disorder characterized by lack of "theory of other minds". [5] [6]
Although some people believe autistic people have no
emotions and no
sense of humor{{
Fact}}
(despite the existence of comedians with the condition),{{
Fact}}
some autistic people reject this and report that they do experience a range of emotions, and indeed have a tremendous sense of humour, but just one that a neurotypical cannot relate to—just as the autistic cannot relate to the neurotypical's humour.{{
Fact}}
This again comes down to a majority perception of 'the norm', when there may not be one. Autistics with Asperger's Syndrome may actually be more emotionally sensitive than a neurotypical, but because of different expressions of emotion, they often come across as rude, abrupt and emotionless. The perception that autistics are emotionless may come from the fact that autistics may be more likely to keep their emotions to themselves—for example, not laughing when they find something funny. Autistics may also have different emotional reactions from what people without autism may expect. Noting a different reaction than they were expecting may prompt people without autism to perceive a general lack of emotion in autistic people. Autistics may also be amused by things that non-autistics would not find funny, such as absurd,
Monty Python-type humor such as eating roads or flowers growing on a
telephone.
Lenny Schafer said that the autism-like lack of empathy of anti-cure activists prevent them from seeing what is in the hearts of pro-cure advocates. [7]
I removed the following paragraph from the article because it is mostly unsourced and not relavent to the autism rights movement. It would fit better in the Rain Man article (if sourced). Q0 ( talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
Fact}}
A countercriticism of this Rain Man defence is that the film was clearly made at a time when understanding of autism was less developed, and is not reflective of the reality.{{
Fact}}
Raymond Babbitt is not considered high-functioning by people in the autism rights movement,{{
Fact}}
who point out that Albert Einstein may have met the diagnostic criteria for high-functioning autism.I noticed that someone put a "citation needed" flag in the intro. The intro used to have citations in it, but was since rewritten without citations. From looking at some of the past discussion on this talk page, it looks like it was felt that the intro does not need citations. Should the intro be cited? Q0 ( talk) 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the "opposition to eliminating autism" section was tagged as having weasel words, and that someone removed a "weasely" sentence in this edit [3]. Although I think there are some more mild weasel words still in the section, I think the tag might have mostly been referring to the removed sentence. Is the tag still needed? Also, the whole article is tagged, so unless that section is worse than the rest of the article, it seems more appropriate not to tag that section. Q0 ( talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to look for a source for this statement:
In this source [4] I found the following statements:
and found the following statements from this source [5]:
I have thought about rewording the statement in the article based on those two sources, but I'm not sure how to do it with some of the emotional language used in the sources. If I were to write, "Some critics consider Michelle Dawson to be their number one public enemy and think she is trying to destroy their children," but that seems a bit too loaded and I'd have WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns about it. I havn't found any less loaded language in the references that cites the needed sentence, but am not sure how to tone down the language while not misrepresenting the content of the sources. Q0 ( talk) 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This article contains statements that have what might be called "weasel words" such as "some people say ...," however, a number of these are sourced. Is there a problem with wording like this when the statements are sourced? Some examples of these statements are the following:
Q0 ( talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following section because it is largely uncited and because controversy sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. When the article was tagged as having a controversy/criticism section, I moved a lot of the material to other sections, but there was still a lot of uncited material that remained. Q0 ( talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The movement has been criticized by autism professionals and parents of autistic children who believe the goals of the movement will not help autistic children. There are some critics of the movement who still support some of the movement's goals despite opposing other goals.
Further responses of the movement can be summarized as follows: citation needed
The debate is ongoing and critics have responded to the autism rights movement's responses to their original criticisms, and the autism rights movement in turn has responded to those.
The autism rights movement and its debates were collaborated online due much in part to usenet's alt.support.autism group (groups.google.com/group/alt.support.autism) which had autistics and people without autism on various sides of rights, cure and treatment issues. Due to the lack of moderation and what they perceive to be the abuse of several autistics on that forum by possible cranks, many have taken up blogging in more moderated communities. Much of the current thought has evolved over time by discussions in these communities and groups. Over time, some internet meme has also resulted because of the autism rights movement, much of which is tongue in cheek criticism of the self-diagnosis issue.
Some of the debate continues offline as well. Autistics and people without autism of all ages participating in the autism rights movement may also be expressly excluded from their local autism organizations. Many have, however formed well-connected offline chapters to address the lack of this inclusion by some cure-oriented autism communities. Some groups, however, have been making efforts to include such families, groups and individuals in the movement to increase the level of communication and create mutual understanding.
Some of the most critical pro-cure advocates are non-autistic relatives of autistics, e.g. those represented by FAAAS, Families of Adults Affected by Asperger Syndrome. [8] Many such organizations have characterized those in the anti-cure movement as being mostly an adult with Asperger Syndrome phenomenon and object to the anti-cure message as a result of their own personal perspectives of living with autistic adults.
There are disagreements within the movement as well. Some autistics would prefer autism to be seen as a disability, meaning that it would have a status similar to blindness or deafness. Within this context, autism rights would fit within the broader movement of disability rights and autistic culture would be analogous to deaf culture. Those supporting this view are concerned that if autism was to be viewed as simply a way of being or as a non-disabled minority group, the needs some autistics have for aid and assistance would be overlooked.
Setting up merge proposal to merge Autism Awareness Campaign UK to Autism rights movement SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears more and more that this article is espousing one biased POV on autism rights. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've cleaned it up, it appears notable enough that it doesn't need to be merged here, but it does need to be mentioned in this article; if some types of autism rights advocacy is left out of this article, this article is POV. It looks like we have a setup on Wiki where all autism groups are classified (by what reliable source?) as either curebies or not: {{ autism rights movement}} and {{ autism cure movement}}. In the absence of reliable sources, this POV needs to be cleaned up and those templates possibly deleted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this article be renamed. I had thought about doing this in the past, but recently I believe it has become problematic. I see that the
gay rights movement has also been changed to
LGBT social movements. I don't know if this should be a model for how this article should be renamed.
Q0 (
talk) 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I retract my suggestion to rename the article. The discussion has gotten too confusing for me. Q0 ( talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)