Talk:Autism rights movement/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Above NPOV dispute

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speculation of autism in famous people 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Autism Awareness Campaigns 

message: These are the external links that were removed in this edit  . 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Signatures of Michelle Dawson's open letter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Homosexuality references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay rights page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: In case there are any doubts, see this. Neurodivergent 11:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple Grandin and Donna Williams 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Individuals 

message: I am concerned with the edit  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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged insulting view of autism edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  PERSONS ON THE SPECTRUM