Talk:Son-Rise

message: I see that this article has been marked for "point of view" review.  I'm largely responsible for its current revision (as of March 5, 2005), so I would be interested in hearing specific suggestions on how it might be edited to make the point of view more neutral.
Much of the text of the article I moved here from the Autism article.  While I kept as much of the original text intact as I could out of respect for the previous author, I did excise or replace some words that struck me as a bit loaded with POV (e.g., changing "polemic" to "book").  On the other hand, a left intact several "scare quotes" (e.g., "real child", "triumph over autism") that might be interpreted as derisive.  Is that the POV you find objectionable?
I tried to avoid wading into any of the disputes about whether or not Son-Rise is a cult, whether or not it promotes child abuse, and whether or not it is effective.  I don't think statements either way on such questions can exist in an article that is supposed to have a "neutral point of view."  In deference to the controversy over whether Raun was really autistic, I left intact the previous author's words "apparently" and "claim" in the History section, and I've modifed the text in the first paragraph to remove any POV about that either.
Although I have some knowledge about and a little experience with Son-Rise (did their 5-day start-up program), and therefore have a POV, I took pains to try to avoid injecting my own opinions, which I would be more than happy to share here on the discussion board (hint: we chose not to pursue Son-Rise).
I'm aware that Son-Rise provokes strong opinions on both sides, and that it would be difficult if not impossible to write an article about it that everyone agrees is unbiased, but it's worth trying.
If there are factual errors in the article, please fix them or point them out.
Thanks,
John
:I have no opinion about Son-Rise, and had never heard about it before this article was created. I simply spotted an new article that had been created by an unregistered user. Although all new articles are welcome, new articles by unregistered users can be a way of hiding vandalism from the watchlists. My first reading of the article gave me the impression that this article was created to draw attention to Son-Rise, and I was wary that the article might be a means of drawing internet traffic to their website. The prominence of external links in the body text, and commercial links to Amazon.com were the main reason for this presumption. The notice is an encouragement for the community to reach consensus on this and its realted article. Gareth Hughes 12:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be understanding if I happen to do something out of step with standard Wikipedia practice while I get up to speed.  I plead ignorance in advance!  Thanks for your explanation of why the article raised a red flag.  I see now how your assessment was based more on style than content, and it makes sense.  My choice of link styles, incidentally, was modeled after other links I saw (which I now know are nonstandard -- newbie error).  It did strike me as ironic, though, that it was flagged for POV, because what prompted me to write the article in the first place was some text about Son-Rise in a subsection of the Autism article that, aside from being structurally awkward (spanning two list items), was decidedly not neutral.  Anyway, after reading the guidelines about POV, I decided to replace it with a short single list item linking to a separate page, adding more descriptive text about Son-Rise, and moving the criticism links into the discussion (I see that you restored one of those criticisms to the articles reference section, so I'm deleting the same item from the discussion -- no sense duplicating).  I understand that the ideal we strive for here is not absence of POV but a balanced (i.e., neutral) inclusion of the full spectrum of POV.  In this case, however, the only POV included was anti-Son-Rise.  Ultimately, the article should include both pro and anti perspectives, and I welcome efforts toward that end, but hunting down pro-Son-Rise opinions to balance the anti opinions is a project I don't have time for right now.  I have no particular interest in the controversy, so I thought it best to start with a bare descriptive skeleton, and hope that others can provide opinions on both sides.  Perhaps that isn't realistic. John Finlayson-Fife 17:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John, thank you for your comments. I really hope you do understand my actions, and that you know that it's nothing personal about you or the subject of the article. I was hoping that by flagging up that the neutrality of the article needed to be checked some of the contributors to the autism article might review this one. With this discussion, I felt that the best thing to do would be to remove the POV check notice and simply add the article to :Category:Autism. It's good to see that you've created an account: I'll drop you the welcome message on your talk page. Gareth Hughes 11:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This change introduced two paragraphs about free lectures that appear to be a personal report. Unfortunately this counts as original research and as such should not appear in Wikipedia. I asked for citations but none have been forthcoming, so I removed the paragraphs. Eubulides 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. I reworded the lead in an attempt to address the problem that you mentioned with the wording there. If you can find reliable sources to back up the other mentioned points, please feel free to add them. Eubulides 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report on free lecture 

message: How many people who have edited and expressed opinions on this program have run a program for a period of time? or Attended any of the courses or other autism treatment/early behavioural programs?
what I find most amusing. Is that with such a diverse population, one program will not be universally greeted in a positive or negative way, it is impossible!. We do not agree on many different issues (politics/religon/fashion/healthcare etc..). If you take onboard the programs goals and it suits your parenting style then it can be a successful tool in helping your Autistic child. I also believe that parents running different programs will and have had success with their own children.If you do not believe in the program then you will lose the energy and enthusiasm to continue with it. 
I have run a program for a few years and have personally seen great improvments in a lot of areas with my child (I know this is only my POV). Whether or not my child would have had similar, better or worse achievements doing nothing or in another program, no-one can say. All the autistic children I know through the sonm-rise/options approach have progressed at some level. Some make huge progress others make small progress, the spectrum of success also only rates what individual goals different people are aiming at.
I have attended the Start-up, Max-Impact, New-frontiers and the Family Intensive week long courses and have a good knowledge of the program. I have also looked at (briefly, not attended any of their courses) TEACHH, Lovaas, RDI, ABA, Growing minds etc... so I know their is a lot of choice out there for people to choose from. Some of the other programs have similarities with aspects of son-rise and some are total opposites. You then have the add ons that can be run along side program like tinted glasses, AIT, Dieting, Vitamins B12, Chelation and Natural oils and local honey......I still think (POV Again!!) that this is the most beneficial for us, as a family (Me, my wife, daughter and autistic son).
Just to quickly clear up the expense of attending all the above courses for me and my wife, £0. The fabulous Caudwell charity funded all the week long courses in the UK, thanks to a partnership between them and the son-rise staff. We then used the fundraising pack from Autism treatment center of America, along with a scholarship from the ATCOA and we attended the family intensive week at the institute in USA. We learnt a great deal and saw impressive improvements in our son over the 5 days.
From a Happy Son-Rise, DAD (B.Davies)
Sorry! for it being a long post:) I just wanted to put my positive and truthful account of running this program, as a lot of people seem to knock it on this page?. I have also met Raun on a number of occasions and I can confirm that he is a genuinely, nice and generous person. Not as this post states( Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".)
One last thing from critisms. The ATCOA is currently having a independant study of Son-Rise by the Lancaster University in UK and I believe I heard a similar study involving an American University (unconfirmed). The sentence about more drawbacks in running a son-rise program. How comes to read it costs 39.00 dollars for a month? also this goes against all the parents I know, have spoken to and keep in touch with. Try reading the messageboard on the son-rise website for FREE and get a FREE 25 min consultation call back with no obligation. Once again it all comes down to the individual and his/her experience of program.
User:62.6.149.17 16th December 2007
Bruh.... You are forcing your own beliefs on your kid. Your love is great but misguided. Your kid knows that life is meaningless and we are all going to die, so just do what you like.........  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombeen (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Depends on the individual

message: Thank you for offering to help, really appriciate that.  The below like works with regard to the article previously mentioned.
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2006/05/03/muratti06_mascot_bertie_feature.shtml
This is a link to the Son Rise sight listing lots of other articles showing parent sucess.
:http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/reviews_and_articles/articles.php
So just to help me make sure I am clear.  I think we both agree that press stories and Documentaries are relavant.  So i am hoping you will help me understand how to place them.  To me this is fact obsurvations not POV?
Warm regards, Ezrah
Sandy,
I do believe this link is active, maybe I logged the edit incorrectly. I am very new to making contributions so please help me out. Also as I read the guidelines the introduction should be representative of the subject. The Son-Rise program has lots of anecdotal evidence of success and that seems to be worthy of the introduction.
I also added a BBC documentary post that was removed, because of no sighting but its featured and distributed by the people at Son-Rise. I am new to Wikipeidia and trying to contribute in the most productive way I can so I am open to input from you. I looked for a reference or pub date but could not find one. I have the documentary and again its distributed widely by Son-Rise so what is the nest way for something like this to be represented in the article?
Warm regards, Ezrah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the link you listed; there's nothing there.  Also, that content wasn't appropriate for the lead.  Anecdote is almost never appropriate, but without seeing the source, I can't guide you in how to write something encyclopedic, or in which section to put it.  Please use Talk:Son-Rise for further discussion, as my talk page is a very busy place.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you can see, the problem was you had left off the final "l" in the link. Now that I have the actual link, I'll read it as soon as I have a free moment. Autismtreatmentcenter is not an independent, secondary source.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I copy edited and cleaned up the article, and read the BBC article; I don't find much that can be used in that article.  I added one sentence, which will likely be deleted by someone else because it is anecdotal and highly unscientific.  We don't usually report on single cases and use the popular media as a source for articles about medical intervention.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree about the "anecdotal and highly unscientific" bit, and I removed the text in question. The article already (and I think rightly so) talks at length about one anecdote, namely the case of Raun Kaufman; adding other anecdotes is a bit much. Let's stick with scientific studies. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the article 

message: This series of edits inserted a lot of changes, all unsourced. For now, I'm reverting them; please add sources for claims like that. I see a fact tag in the article, which suggests that some of the claims now in the article should be removed; I'll take a look at that next. Eubulides (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims 

message: The following two lines are in the article summary at the top, and then are repeated in the effectiveness section.  
"A 2003 study found that involvement with the program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time,[2] and a 2006 study found that the program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy."
It seems to me that repeating these two lines overemphasizes what is actually a healthy scientific skepticism about the program, and in overemphasizing it, actually detracts from the power of that healthy skepticism.
Is there any way to have these two lines in one spot or the other in the article, but not in both?  I think this would improve the article.
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the wording can be improved, let's do that. We need to bear in mind that WP:LEAD says that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and is not supposed to introduce new points. Inevitably this means that the lead has to repeat what's in the body, though it obviously need not use the same words. Since the mainstream opinion of Son-Rise is one of healthy scientific skepticism, this needs to be the central point covered in the lead (as per WP:WEIGHT). Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  repetition 

message: 207.75.81.12 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 published results  

message: Went through reference [5]  but could not find anywhere the what editior claim is being said in this article, i.e. "While five clinics throughout New York State described the boy as "socially withdrawn and uncommunicative" in the 1970s, only one clinic confirmed the diagnosis of autism". Only the first part of statement i.e. " Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. " exists in reference. Could be that this is taken from the reference of the refernce i.e. from Siegle Bryan's book: Siegel, B. (1996). The world of the autistic child: Understanding and treating autistic spectrum disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
 gives some more on the statements of Siegle Bryan's claim.
Naber78 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The singular description of "Autism" is too vague to describe adequately what the subject is about. The updated description of "Autism-related organizations in the United States" helps define the subject well.174.23.171.229 (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the categorization description...