Talk:Autism Speaks

Collection of links related to controversies over Autism Speaks

I've just now created a subpage of this talk page: /Controversy_links and filled it with a collection of links related to controversies involving Autism Speaks. While most of them are not WP:RS themselves, they may be helpful in identifying topics for the article, and determining the degree of notability of various issues. Additions are gratefully appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns and weak sources

WP:RS indicates that blogs are not given much credence as sources for articles. WireTap is a shuttered blog, and does not appear to have a significant amount of editorial control. In any case, the Battleground: The Media reference is, as I understand it, republishing based off material from WireTap. The book is currently in the process of being removed from distribution by the publisher due to concerns over the book's accuracy, although no formal retraction has been issued at this time.

I think BLP indicates that such information, if contested and weakly sourced, should be removed. LFaraone 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to organizations. Please see WP:BLPGROUP. Henrymrx (t·c) 18:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Suppressing criticism yet again

[This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism_Speaks&curid=22282057&diff=602212156&oldid=602208256] is a bad edit. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism should be added only when they meet WP:RS. The first was a link to the talk page, second was to a Tumblr page. Neither comes close to meeting RS. Yobol (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny how the need to find sourcing is so easy to recommend to others, yet those deleting are always incapable of it themselves. Who are the autistic people on the board of Autism Speaks? The claim that there aren't any (and there aren't) is removed as unsourced, yet the counter claim that nameless autists are represented is unchallenged, despite being (per Popper) the one that's obviously sourceable, if only it were true. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, what? If you find other poorly sourced material, feel free to remove that as well. I just removed a blatant example of poorly sourced material, added to the lead no less. If you want to add that material back, you might want to read WP:BURDEN. Yobol (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger: Light It Up Blue

The Light It Up Blue initiative/event is a fundraising campaign for Autism Speaks. It does not exist without Autism Speaks. Therefore, the information on Light It Up Blue is entirely within the purview of this article. Muffinator (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: Examining the sources, I'm not entirely sure it's notable outside its relation to Autism Speaks. Therefore, I believe it should be merged. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: A notable social movement. RoyalMate1 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: But is it notable outside its connection to Autism Speaks? Is it independently notable? Most sources I find stress its connection to Autism Speaks in a way that seems like it's not notable without the connection. (In short, I'm wondering if you have sources that discuss it independently of Autism Speaks, Royalmate1.) - Purplewowies (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When discussion is so slow, just go ahead and do it. If anyone objects you will see it then. Currently it's only cluttering the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD

The generally accepted flow in disputes is outlined at WP:BRD. If you boldly make a change and it is reverted, it is time to discuss the issue. BRBRBRD is not a generally accepted alternative.

Franklludwig added material sourced to buzzfeed, which is not a reliable source. I reverted for that reason. Franklludwig undid the revert without explanation. Strongjam reverted for the same reason. Franklludwig restored the material, citing a Facebook group, which is not a reliable source. I have re-re-reverted the addition and this is the discussion. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the media have remained quiet and none of the established websites have written about it doesn't alter the fact that it happened, and the Facebook thread in itself is proof for that. I can't see any plausible reason for removing the paragraph apart from protecting Autism Speaks from criticism. - Frank L. Ludwig— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklludwig (talk • contribs) 19:39, May 13, 2015‎

Policy requires us to source all claims to reliable sources. If something isn't in mainstream sources then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. — Strongjam (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

While you may feel that independent reliable sources "should have" reported on this, Wikipedia only covers material that was covered by independent reliable sources. Self-published sources are not sufficient here. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have a parade of IPs (likely socks) restoring the edit, I guess it's time for page protection. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)