The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In the article [] stated is "Amanda Baggs has written for Autistics.org, an anti-cure autism website..." But the http://autistics.org website is Amanda Bagggs's personal website. As such it's not a credible source per NPOV. One of her personal sub-websites of this website, http://amanda.autistics.org, where she identifies herself. Network Solutions WHOIS information http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/autistics.org has her public account information listed, and the name is under Laura Tisoncik, who is her partner. This planetautism.com cached webpage (scroll down to colored/highlighted text) [] has her statement about her role at autistics.org as a webmaster. I'll try to find public statements that Laura and Amanda are partners. I also believe Amanda started the website and later Laura was supposedly the webmaster.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
**No source is provided establishing Amanda Baggs is an "individual" of the autism rights movement. Further, CNN doesn't state this in the linked article. Further, CNN is only media and as such not a source to judge whether anyone is an official or important autism rights activist.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The template [] for the article lists Amanda Baggs as a Persons of the autism rights movement, but as noted above, there is no NPOV sources establishing she is an official autism rights activist, or one of this importance.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
In the article under "Individuals" [] there is no reference/citation for Dawson. (2) There are thousands of autism rights activists, and in the article there is no objective source provided that establishes that the five listed individuals are THE autism rights activists, or that they are objectively determined important activists. (3) The source for Blume is not NPOV; it's an article by him himself. (4) Same for Sinclair.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In the article under "Individuals" [], "The essays of some individuals in the movement, including Amanda Baggs and Jim Sinclair, have been used as reading assignments in a class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." I don't see anything at that webpage showing this.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the Individuals section is not NPOV and should be removed.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think my comments above apply to the Template [] for the article as well.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why an RFC was needed here? The aricle has long been in bad shape, and should be cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SandyGeorgia that an RFC is not called for here. Just fix the article; it's not like it was actively being edited or that there was a lot of active controversy over it. I see now that SandyGeorgia has fixed the article, which should make the above points moot. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There r some remaining points I made; curious of your opinions. I bold printed them above. Sorry about my unfamiliarity with wikipedia editing and procedure. Re the Individuals list, so is this a list that could grow endlessly. I know of about 20 names I could enter along with credible website sources. Also, 'autism rights activists' applies, also, to those seeking treatment, cure, etc, and include many people with autism/Aspergers and many parents of such, and, eg Autism Speaks can be considered an activist entity, seeking the rights of care and treatment for those who can't advocate for themselves (both young and old).--GzRRk 4 (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The points about individuals make sense, and I suggest editing the article accordingly. It's pretty nonstandard to consider Autism Speaks to be an autism rights / neurodiversity / anti-cure movement, though. Eubulides (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see the also-known-as's for 'autism rights movement'. Seems, then, the name 'Autism Rights Movement' is too general, as it, by the name alone, could include rights advocating from both pro-treatment and anti-treatment. The other names (neurodiversity and anti-cure movement) are more specific and maybe better. Possible name change for the article?--GzRRk 4 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The other names you mention are actually less specific. "Anti-cure" 1) could refer to being against cures for any number of condtions and 2) excludes those that support the right of the autistic individual to choose current cures. "Neurodiversity" encompasses other neurological differences, for example, Synthesasia, Parkinson's disease, and dyspraxia.
Despite the established use of the terms, I believe confusion stems from describing one's relationship to autism rights through being "pro-treatment" vs "anti-treatment". Supporting one's civil rights supports one's choice (note, the person affected with the condition(autism), not the parents or state's choice) in refusing, or making use of, current methods to treat or "cure" the condition. --6th Happiness (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I also edited the Template by removing Wrong Planet from the Organizations list. Wrong Planet is not an organization; rather it's an Internet discussion board, and with 99.9% anonymous users. 'Organization' would seem to mean more than anonymous Internet users/"members". Re it's structure, it's owned by one person Alex Plank and run by he and a few moderators, who are anonymous on the website and no where identified.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Under Neurotypical Supporters the #10 reference is given twice. One example, Autistics.org claims that parents can be the movement's strongest allies. Also reference #19 is of Baggs's website: autistics.org has formed many sub-websites with prefix names attached to the main name autistics.org, another example being http://amanda.autistics.org for Amanda Baggs. Again, these references are of the website for Amanda Baggs and her partner Laura, as discussed at the top of this Talk page. As such, the references are not NPOV: Baggs is not an objective or neutral source on autism rights, and her publishing an article (the reference above) on Michelle Dawson doesn't make Dawson this either. (This strategy by Baggs et al is, seemingly, to try to get Baggs and autistic.org's names in wikipedia as objective sources, and to not indicate that the various autistics.org websites are Baggs's websites, and then to get whoever Baggs mentions and writes about listed as objective sources as well). References 20 and 21 are copied and pasted supposed email statements, and, the website aspiesforfreedom.com is a message board, with essentially all anonymous users, and with no named organizational members as seen in the About US section of the website. As such, all seem [NPOV] and not credible (not sure of the wikipedia source for credibility). For the #16 reference, I wonder if it's best to have the reference go directly to the source, and have the source available on the Internet, rather than have it apparently copied and pasted from the WA State Journal and put on another website; and no standard information for the Journal article is given such as the volume number, pages, dates, etc. --GzRRk 4 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The same logic would apply to Jim Sinclair, then. A reivew of WP:RS is probably needed. But when deleting text, please take care not to leave named refs hanging ... scroll to the bottom of the page and check for red links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Molly Kessler should be mentioned in this article. She has an interesting view: Autists do not have a 'problem', but rather their own social language, though it would be beneficial to them to 'acquire' the neurotypical social language for personal benefit. She's pretty well-known in Israel, and she's even lectured abroad a few times (in Singapore, Japan, and I believe Australia as well). Siúnrá (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
it's things like this which causes gigantic leaps in science and art, the pro-cure people are idiots! are they really that thick they can't see what massive leaps these so called defective people have given us? being social can be defined as a form of mental retardation, i know of more socially capable failures than i know anti-social failures (a slightly autistic boss is much more driven than a non-autistic one, big fat examples are: Microsoft/Apple/Dell etc.) Markthemac (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Youre entitled to your opinions but please note that it's discouraged to start conversations about the topic of the article (as opposed to the article itself) on the talk page, as per WP:NOTFORUM. —Soap— 01:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
i just wonder what the motivation behind a cure would be, this page lacks insight Markthemac (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If a cure that works on living people can be found, it would mean that people who are autistic today would not always have to be. If a cure that is administered before birth can be found, then it could prevent the birth of autistic babies. Of course there is a moral dilemma here, which could create opposition to administering the cure even if it worked perfectly, and that is what this debate is about. —Soap— 01:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
it's a form of eugenics, but it will make my day if we find a cure for severely happy people though (nudge) Markthemac (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The criticism section is notably biased against the critical viewpoint. Examples include multiple scare quotes, no mention of that those against cures evidently (via mechanisms like the US' ADA, state-funded insurance, or insurance companies) expect the rest of society to bear the costs of taking care of those incapable of self-care, failure to mention things associated with autism (as opposed to Asperger's) like mental retardation (clearly a deficit in functioning), etc. (Yes, I feel pretty strongly on this. It makes even less sense than claiming that ADD - which I have - isn't a disability (it most definitely is for most people). But that doesn't mean the section isn't biased.) Allens (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Will edit that. Have a feeling AFF is behind this... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed here too. Larger problem, however, is that this section includes irrelevant material. A Criticisms section should be critical of the topic of the article, but most of this section is criticism of therapy for people with autism. That portion of the material needs to be moved. TricksterWolf (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth including the prevalence of autisim/aspergers being used as slurs on the internet?
Because the article mentions anti-cure insults and sorta implies that they are a result of having autism and I think its worth noting that people with out autism can be just as hostile to people with it as the other way around.
Hi 18.104.22.168! You would need a much better source than the one you mention. Please see WP:RS for learning on how to identify a reliable source. With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)