Talk:Autism rights movement

RFC

 * 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)
 * This recent blog discusses a larger controversy about Amanda Baggs. http://amandabaggscontroversy.blogspot.com --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.[20]" 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. Sandy Georgia (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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Molly Kessler
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)

curing Asperger would mean
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 concept behind "eugenics" is the improvement of the human gene pool by replacing natural selection with artificial selection.
 * The "cure Autism" movement wants to impoverish the human gene pool by removing genes commonly associated with genius.
 * —ADeviloper (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section - biased against critics
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...
 * —23.16.219.165 (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)

As an autistic person with attention difference hyperactivity dynamic, I agree with your point and I wouldn't get rid of my autism or my ADHD even if I could. However, the main complaint was the criticism section was biased against critics. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 01:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree.
 * AD(H), Autism, Dyslexia and various other "conditions" are normal parts of human neurodiversity. These "conditions" typically involve both extreme weaknesses and extreme strengths. Often, those weaknesses and strengths are closely related.
 * For example, AD(H) and Autism are both associated with both the struggle to keep attention in some areas (a weakness) and the capacity to hyperfocus in other areas (a strength). Both people with AD(H) and people with Autism can learn to make the impact of their "condition" mostly beneficial by reducing the influence in their personal lives of areas where they struggle to keep attention and increasing the influence of areas where they can hyperfocus.
 * Because these "conditions" are double-edged swords that involve both strengths and weaknesses, neither AD(H) nor Autism nor Dyslexia technically qualify as disabilities.
 * —ADeviloper (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Autism is categorized as a disability by a number of sources, including ASAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9707:B000:ECDC:EE28:C097:573C (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "ADeviloper"

one of the sponsors on the news this morning should have said Walk Now For Autism Rights Movement not Walk Now For Autism Speaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.58.61 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate here?
section from article on Cherry Hill Public Schools:

Controversy
In April 2012, the parent of an autistic student released a video on Youtube"Teacher/Bully: How My Son Was Humiliated and Tormented by his Teacher and Aide", Stuart Chaifetz, video at YouTube, posted April 20, 2012 providing evidence that the student was the subject of emotional abuse at the hands of his teacher and aide at Horace Mann Elementary School, in the Cherry Hill school district.Horace Mann Elementary School website. The evidence was secured when the child's father, Stuart Chaifetz, wired his son before sending him to school. When Chaifetz listened to the audio recording, according to one news report, "Chaifetz says he caught his son's teachers gossiping, talking about alcohol and violently yelling at students. He took the audio to the Cherry Hill School District, where officials fired one of the teachers involved after hearing the tape. Chaifetz's son was relocated to a new school, where Chaifetz says he is doing well."NJ Father Records Teachers Bullying His Autistic Child, MyFoxPhilly.com"Verbal abuse of autistic student sparks calls for reform", Jim Walsh and Phil Dunn, Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reprinted at USA Today website, 29 April 2012 Chaifetz created a petition asking for legislation to allow the immediate firing of teachers who have bullied students. As of April 29, it had garnered over 149,000 signatures."To the New Jersey Legislature and Congress: Pass legislation so that teachers who bully children are immediately fired", petition at Change.org, access date 29 April 2012

Should this be here? maybe at the autism article? I think it may deserve its own article.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.126 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-autism/aspergers slurs
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.

Here is a reference:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/autism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.118.204 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 67.187.118.204! 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 Falk     talk   16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Massive quote in Autistic people have their own culture section
It seems to me that it is neither stylistically good for an encyclopaedia to include this massive quote, nor in compliance with WP policy on quotes. It doesn't have a proper citation (a link to the original quote, for instance), is far too long (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations) and is probably a potential copvio issue too. I suggest someone looks into this (I would just delete it, but I feel it's best to discuss it first. Thanks. GoddersUK (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Definitely a copyvio concern, and in addition a long essay-like quote like that, which essentially consists of the personal musings of one non-notable individual in a discussion forum, are all kinds of unencyclopedicc. --bonadea contributions talk 07:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Autism rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012161116/http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001574.html to http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001574.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Autism rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126110607/http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/History_of_ANI.html to http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/History_of_ANI.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126110607/http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/History_of_ANI.html to http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/History_of_ANI.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070707/fob4.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/sareport/Week-of-Mon-20050110/000350.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fightingautism.org/clock/index.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://asatonline.org/resources/library/moms_perspective.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Autism rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/20/health/20autism.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0%2C%2C2143123%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215181832/http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html to http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1935959%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.autismacceptancemonth.com/acceptance-month-conclusion/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.autismacceptancemonth.com/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell, and the Autistic Dark Web
While I agree that counterpoints and criticisms should be presented in all matters, Jonathan Mitchell has been known to personally attack and harass members of the Autism Rights Movement / Neurodiversity movement, and bringing attention to him only helps him grow in terms of people he can use to further his own personal agenda. On his new website; http://autismgadfly.blogspot.com/ ; he gives unauthorized medical advice to readers, a violation of law, along with other people in his group of people on Twitter using the #AutisticDarkWeb to harass people who are pro-neurodivergence. The Autistic Dark Web is becoming a hate group, and members of it have advocated to be "put to death by lethal injection" for those who are part of the ND movement (source: http://autismisbad.blogspot.com/2015/08/neurodiversity-amendment.html ),

I request a moderator or admin of Wikipedia look into this, if possible. Apologies if this post is a mess, I'm still unsure on the formatting for these things.

69.122.254.240 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)DjangoSolarBoy


 * I've removed your references to a specific editor's non-Wikipedia activities as outting someone is against Wikipedia policy. If you want someone to look into it post it here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents . Do not post links to outside activity but do advise them you can provide it by a non-public method such as email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattevansc3 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Amanda Baggs, Sue Rubin, and Amy Sequenzia
I noticed that viewpoints attributed to these three autistic individuals have been deleted from this article and a few other autism-related articles. There needs to be more discussion before a decision is made to erase their voices from Wikipedia. It appears that these passages were removed because the three expressed their opinions via facilitated communication, a discredited means of communication. However, Baggs (https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/the-language-of-autism/, https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-autism/) and Rubin (https://www.newsweek.com/my-mind-began-wake-122229) are capable of typing independently. Sequenzia still needs support typing, but no reliable source seems to discount her views because of her method of communication. CatPath (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Baggs is not a facilitated communication user. I removed her from the article under the mistaken belief that the was. However, the technique is scientifically discredited, so we cannot include the "opinions" of it's users. The news sources that quote them are not aware of the psudoscientific status of this communication technique. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubin has been typing without a facilitator for a while now. Read the Newsweek article that I linked to above. It says, "Sue, however, has typed on her own for several years now." The article was written in 2005. CatPath (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This source may be dubious. There seems not to be evidence that she can type independently. Since she is a FC user, we should be skeptical of any claim made about her ability to communicate which has not been proven. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Jonathan Mitchel from Criticism and Counter Movement
Jonathan Mitchell has self published one book and writes a blog. He has no academic papers published in relation to neurodiversity.

As he is not a prominent figure in the Neurodiversity conversation his inclusion gives undue weight to the criticism section. There is also COI issues regarding his inclusion due to his relationship with Ylevental.

Mattevansc3 (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If having an academic paper published about neurodiversity were a criterion, we would have to delete every activist mentioned in the article (except for Michelle Dawson, perhaps). I don't see a problem here. Mitchell's comments are properly sourced, and they occupy a tiny fraction of the article. And yes, we all know about Ylevental's COI issues. CatPath (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that his inclusion is POV pushing and "Righting Wrongs". Off wikipedia, Ylevental promotes Jonathan Mitchell's anti-neurodiversity Twitter account via his Twitter account and they both are constantly communicating to each other via a anti-neurodiversity hashtag. Jonathan Mitchell's inclusion isn't about creating a better encyclopedia, it's about Ylevental using Wikipedia as a platform for his own personal anti-neurodiversity beliefs.
 * I also disagree on it being properly sourced. The NYT article [2] uses a direct quote from Jonathan Mitchell's own blog without commentary, that effectively makes Jonathan Mitchell's blog site the source of the quote. That's not a reliable source. On his blog his story changes from entry to entry. In the blog the NYT quote comes from he says autism prevented him From making a living, in an earlier blog entry he says he was let go from a job he held for nine years because they brought in a computerised system and he also resigned from another job after a week; http://jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/autism-genetics.html


 * While small in comparison to the whole article, he is only one of three people in that section. It raises his profile and positions his viewpoints on neurodiversity as credible, Wikipedia is giving authenticity to him.

Mattevansc3 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ylevental may have added the passage, but it's given the proper weight and supported with reliable sources. Mitchell is clearly a prominent voice in the anti-neurodiversity crowd, so including his views in brief form shouldn't be an issue. He has been causing a ruckus among the pro-neurodiversity crowd long before Ylevental appeared on the scene.
 * As for the source you're questioning, I'm not sure I understand the issue you're raising. Are you saying that he was lying and that he actually made a living despite being autistic? If the author of the New York article or the editor supervising the author thought Mitchell wasn't telling the truth, the quote from his blog would not have been included in the article. We should consider removing the passage only if we find a reliable source claiming that Mitchell was lying about his claim.  CatPath (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The quote in the New York article is pulled from one of Jonathan Mitchell's blog entries; http://jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/neurodiv.html specifically the 10th and final paragraphs. Even the author writes "But of course some autistic people do want to be cured, now. Jonathan Mitchell, an autistic who blogs against neurodiversity, says,". They offer no assessment of the validity of the statement, just that the statement was made and it came from Jonathan Mitchell.


 * Can we get a better source than Jonathan Mitchell himself? On the same blog site the New York pulled the quotes from, Jonathan Mitchell says in two separate entries that he worked for nine years as a medical transcriber and he lost that job, not because he was autistic but because his employer found a software package that did the job instead. This is the issue with Jonathan Mitchell, every source of information comes from him. Its either interviews he's given or someone copying comments from his blog. In both of these instances there's no apparent fact checking and his comments are presented as "fact".
 * As another example he claims he's an author while only once acknowledging that he's never been published and self published one of the novels https://corticalchauvinism.com/2016/10/03/jonathan-mitchell-autisms-gadfly/


 * He is an unreliable source and that's not really suitable for Wikipedia, especially for a controversial subject.
 * Mattevansc3 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also in the NPR interview at 2:05 they also state he works as a medical transcriptionist https://www.wnyc.org/story/108427-on-the-spectrum

Mattevansc3 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I replaced the New York article with an academic paper. CatPath (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And the passage regarding him not being able to hold a job? The NPR audio clip confirms Jonathan Mitchell's statement he was employed as a medical transcriptionist. Mattevansc3 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, a quote describing Mitchell's personal problems doesn't contribute much to the section. I went ahead and removed the entire sentence. I'll try to find a suitable replacement when I have the time. CatPath (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than looking for a replacement would making it about the Autistic Dark Web as a whole be an option? Jonathan Mitchell is part of that group among others that were part of the criticism section like Thomas Clement and as an autistic led counter culture it would be more relevant to the page. One potential source is here; https://corticalchauvinism.com/2018/08/27/bitterness-isnt-working-the-decline-of-radical-autism-the-rise-of-the-autistic-dark-web/ Mattevansc3 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of article
Disputed neutrality. It focuses what autistic people and autistic activists say, not what experts in medical field say. Aocdnw (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about activism. It should discuss activism. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should contrast it with expert opinion as well and should have less weasel words like "Some". Aocdnw (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please mark the weasel words where you see them. Fewer weasel words is better. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have sen your user page and maybe it is best to edit field which does not personally affect you. Just a suggestion, it is not conflict of interest but there is high chance you have strong POV. Aocdnw (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a POV. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but those with personal attachment have much stronger POV, that was the point of my comment. Don't take it as offence or attack on you. Aocdnw (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you are suggesting that I shouldn't edit this page because I am autistic. Go to a page on feminism and suggest that women shouldn't edit those articles. See what kind of response you get. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a false dichotomy to compare women who are for the most part neurotypical, to a wide spectrum of autistic people, Most women are able to speak for themselves, and even then they disagree greatly with feminism and even many men edit the pages to show a lot of nuance and disagreements within the movement and the long history of inner conflict within the wide array of feminist movements and splinters, while this page seems to have sweeping overgeneralizations led by a small group of activists and a minority of scientists and greatly over-represents the entire the autistic community and significantly ignores the majority of scientific input and their views on autism to push what appears to be a linear narrative for a pro-neurodiversity POV. Which in reality, ignores a picture which is a much more nuanced situation, with a lot more people on or related to people on the spectrum who have different views and needs who are at risk of being spoken over by a large portion of people who are in the autism rights movement and neurodiversity community who mostly are lower in support needs rather than autistic people as a whole. And I think this is a serious problem both for the scientific community and autistic people as a whole where a small minority of autistics who can speak will over-represent an entire community of autistics for one general anti-treatment movement when in reality, being against treatment for many autistic is potentially extremely harmful and may ignore serious needs of those on the spectrum. Now before you assume I am some radical anti-autism advocate. Just so you know. I am autistic too and just because you are autistic does not mean you can represent all of us on the spectrum and generalize our nuanced views on treatments and cures to promote your worldview. -AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2021 (EST)
 * Still, such problems are not solved by excluding a group of people but rather by including others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I am not saying the articles contents are inherently bad, or wrong, nor that they should be removed, but just that it and its contents are largely appearing to be displaying what one could see as a linear narrative from an activists perspective rather than what the general community of people related to the autism field have to say about the movement. -AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Email lists

 * Do we really need to discuss flame wars on email lists? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your characterization as "flame wars", besides it is more notable and specific than multiple claims throughout the article attributed to "some activist". Might as well be some guy typing away from his home. Aocdnw (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those claims cannot reasonably be used as justification to keep the section on an email dispute. I would like to see some evidence that the email dispute was more than a well-publicized flame war. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, "flame war" is your personal characterization and POV, no one calls it like that. Aocdnw (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never before seen a reference to an email dispute in an encyclopedia. An email dispute must be even less notable than one that occurs on an internet forum. And I characterize it as a flame war based on its content. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is Original Research, your characterization doesn't matter, only what references say. Aocdnw (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It would only be original research if I tried to call it a flame war in the article. Such sourcing is not necessary on the talk page. If it looks like a flame war, I can call it a flame war. We don't need coverage of flame wars in this article. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No you can't, please read WP:OR. You would need references WP:RS calling it flame war in order for that characterization to be accepted. If you can provide them I would be happy to comply. Aocdnw (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OR states that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is, calling it flame war is just your POV as far as I can see and no RS calls it like that, therefore removal on those grounds is not in question. I suggest you start Request for Comment or some similar venue, because it doesn't look like we will come to an agreement. Please do not change entire comment when you already typed and published it first. Writing it is for politeness in edit summary is very disingenuous.Aocdnw (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not change the comment after it was replied to. I have shown you the relevant quote from WP:OR. If you want to request an outside opinion, go ahead, but his dispute seems a bit petty for that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, if it is petty then drop it. Saying it is "flame war" is complete non starter. Aocdnw (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a flame war, and I don't intend to include coverage of a flame war in this article if I can help it. Do you really care this much about this email dispute? I don't want to want to assume bad faith, but I think you may have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion
A scrap on a mailing list is far, far too excessive of detail to be worth inclusion on an article on a very broad topic like this. Material on the email dispute should be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, valuable information. Amazonz (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course Wikiman2718 is right. E-Mails? What's next, bathroom graffiti? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Autism community
Here are two sources which state that the autistic community condemns Autism Speaks. The fist actually says "disability community".


 * Both articles that claim to speak for the autistic community are published by The Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Since they are an advocacy group, I believe this violates the good research part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Are there independent sources that define the autistic community and who represents them? 75.166.85.137 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Disabled world does not appear to be written by ASAN, as far as I can tell. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cite this page on the bottom: The Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2009, September 27). Autistic Community Condemns Autism Speaks. Disabled World. Retrieved November 7, 2021 from www.disabled-world.com/health/neurology/autism/autism-speaks-video.php 75.166.85.137 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert
The section is "views". It is the view of the autism rights movement that autism is a difference. Sometimes it is also considered as a disability. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The view being described belongs to the American psychological association, rather than the autism rights movement. I would agree with you that the current content of the chapter could be better, but I don't think your change improves it. Please find some sources to support your point and rewrite some of the current versiion, rather than just removing chunks. If you want, you can even rewrite the entire chapter. (though I would recommend placing the proposed change for review on the talk page first, so we can go over it and make sure it is an improvement on the previous version before inserting it, as it's a fairly large change.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Article appears to be lacking great nuance regarding its history in the autism community
Considering this and the Neurodiversity article are both appearing to be making huge overgeneralizations of a whole spectrum of individuals and related peers, each with their own varied thoughts regarding various treatments and also largely shows a clear bias against what autism scientists as many other autism advocates are currently saying, with its history of controversy and criticism both by mainstream scientists and other autism advocates in the page largely being ignored. Science isn't a democracy and I worry this page may become taken over by a small group of partisans (often those with low support needs) to push a clear political agenda for their own ends that will affect the autism community as a whole rather than to give the objective facts as they are being reported. Just so you know. I am not some pro-cure autism speaks advocate. I am a person with autism myself, and seeing the complete disregard of my and various other autistic people's wide beliefs under one anti-treatment banner is doing a great disservice for us. I implore people to please begin editing this page to reduce a level of significant bias in the article and to see things from both perspectives, and to take note of the great amount of division it has caused in the autism community such as with. ,, , and --Special:Contributions/72.53.87.239 (talk) 03:43, 09 November 2021 (EST)
 * Could you point at specific points in the article to bring your concerns a little more into focus? --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering the entire article gives so much weight to the movement and its perspectives while also largely underrepresenting the controversy and criticism it has garnered over the years by others within autism advocacy, people on the spectrum, a majority of people in the scientific community and with people who are related to autistic individuals. The entire article is just giving so much information from a singular small portion of advocates and is written in what could be seen as a linear-narrative, as it is giving undue weight to report on just one view from a certain portion of activists of a very nuanced discussion of a serious mental condition, while significantly under-representing the other perspectives which are prevalent in the entire article, this problem is not just in certain parts of it, as the entire article is written like this and I argue that the only way for this to be improved is for this page to be given an undue weight tag to help promote citing more perspectives rather than just those promoted by the Neurodiversity movement. --AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (EST)
 * Could this be resolved by adding a Controversy section? And if so, what would be in it? I don't really see this "small portion of advocates" position, by the way, from what I can tell the majority of autism advocacy does in fact center around this movement.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, regarding your point, I would agree with you that the movement is typically very popular for those on the spectrum with "low support needs" who often are able to speak for themselves. However, many autism scientists in the field are greatly debating the potential over-diagnosis of autism, due to significant rise of those diagnosed on the spectrum who are able to speak for themselves. My issue with that is that while with noble intent (and at times has even done good for the autism community in humanizing those within the spectrum), those who are apart of autism advocacy while also being with lower support needs, or who may potentially not be on the spectrum at all, might end up unintentionally speaking over those who can't speak for themselves. And in that way, said advocacy might risk representing only the perspectives of a certain amount of people on the spectrum rather than as a whole, alongside scientists and those related to them who try to speak on the behalf of those with higher support needs. And that it ignores a lot of nuance regarding the condition that cannot be represented by a broad banner of "neurodiversity". This page at least in my opinion doesn't seem to fully show those other perspectives. And that argument may seem to be a common point of contention in the autism community and between others on the spectrum as a whole --AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2021 (EST)
 * I've heard this argument a lot, yeah. I've personally never seen evidence of it actually being a problem, but my opinion on the matter doesn't really factor into it. I think this article could be improved somewhat by a "criticism" section. This would allow us to mention the most common objections to the movement in one central place in the article.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's generally not a good idea to segregate criticisms into its own section. It often ends up creating issues with undue weight, with criticisms getting too much emphasis in an article. Criticisms should be incorporated into the other sections of the article where appropriate. CatPath   meow at me  21:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to note that a number of people who would be considered "high support needs" can and do advocate for themselves, and I've known quite a few to advocate for neurodiversity as well. (I'm not going to grab specific sources right this moment (though I think I could), as I'm quite busy today and my purpose for making this specific reply was that reading that was eating at me.) I do think that making the assumption that only people with low support needs (typically, I mean, as one's support needs can change day-to-day) advocate for neurodiversity--or the flipside, that anyone who can speak or type has low support needs--might be a dangerous bias. (And I want to say it's possible it could even affect what someone making that assumption considers a reliable source--I can't say this for certain in every editor's case or every situation, of course, but in a few other spheres with divides like these I have seen bias result in multiple editors treating a not-quite-RS sharing an opinion (which made it a hard non-RS for the weasel-trying-to-pass-as-factual statement it was being used to support) as if it were a RS that was sharing a fact.)(Though there are at times recognized issues with speaking autistic people tending to take the spotlight over nonspeaking and/or AAC users. There was actually a lot of intra-autistic-community talk regarding that point this year (including probably why the Autistic Self Advocacy Network gala this year place direct focus on nonspeaking autistic people) as nonspeaking autistic issues came into the spotlight earlier this year due to certain media events.)TL;DR: There are definitely people and groups who criticize neurodiversity; I just think the message I'm replying to (last one by AWEE) operates from a base assumption that is incorrect (and one that could affect one's editing or searching for citations, if they don't take care to avoid it doing so). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because there is to a certain extent, advocacy groups that have done some initiatives in support for and to represent those with higher-needs, doesn't ignore the general trend in recent years of a rise in diagnosed cases for those who are in significantly lower-support needs, (some of which possibly being misdiagnosed for other conditions like ADHD). I think it is a still worrying possibility that we should consider if we factor the rise of the movement largely paralleling the rise in lower-support needs cases being diagnosed. Which may inevitably still lead to a misrepresentation of the autism experience as a whole. While it is in fact true that many people with high-support needs do advocate to some extent, still doesn't ignore the general trend that is happening regarding the rise of both the diagnosis of lower-support needs cases and the neurodiversity movement and how said people with higher-supports needs may still have a harder time trying to express their personal experiences and beliefs about the condition in a movement that seems increasingly more and more focused in recent years on generalizing a serious condition under a broad brush of "accepting" their disability and seeing it as "just a harmless difference" that doesn't at all need to be treated, rather than listening to the nuanced desires of people with higher-support as well as those who advocate for them (such as doctors and family members) would want for their autism. Because as someone who was raised in spec ed. classed, I myself have known many different individuals, all of which having different views on their autism, (some of which wanting to remain their old selves and rejecting treatments, while others to be treated or even fully cured as they see it as greatly impacting their lives, some people are unable to have any view at all because they don't even understand or comprehend their condition and how it has greatly affected them) and the lack of nuance I am starting to see regarding that in the new "neurodiversity" movement especially by self-advocates on social-media (some of which being self-diagnosed) to me says something that I think may end up doing harm to the community they claim to want to support. --AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 21:38, 13, December 2021 (EST)
 * So... I needed to take space from this because I think I keep looking at it when my own brain cannot process the entire wall of text at once (and I can't properly get my mind to write out a longer response to it that makes sense and accurately explains all of what I meant, so I'm going to stick to the most Wikipedia-relevant bit). My thought process was really more that it felt like your perspective was a bit off base from my own experiences (disabled myself, have over many, many years interacted with a variety of disabled people including many, many autistic people) and it felt like the specific way you talk about your perspective and thoughts, it might have been something that could introduce bias when looking for reliable sources to back up assertions, if you don't recognize and control for it. (And we all do have biases, because we all have experiences that color our lives! What's important and was the core of my previous message (as opposed to the rest, which was more related to the topic and felt like it was a balancing act not to straddle WP:NOTFORUM) is just that I've seen people who let that bias heavily affect what sources they use to the point sometimes they don't even use reliable ones, just to be sure they're using ones that align with their biases.) (As a side note (small so maybe it won't detract from my actual response), I don't personally have a problem with self-diagnosis, but part of that may be related to the fact my parents made it very unclear to me whether or not I had a disability at all for some years so I sort of "functioned" as self-diagnosed for about three years... with a disability the school system had already identified me as having. So I can sort of jibe with some of the factors that may bring people to end up there.) - Purplewowies (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable individuals
Why is Michaelangelo featured here? The Autism rights movement did not exist during the period which Michaelangelo was alive and this does not make him a notable individual for the campaign of autism rights. It should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APDHistorian (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

the term "Aspergers Syndrome"
why is the term aspergers syndrome used in this article? its own wikipedia page refers to it as outdated, and it hasn't been used in an official capacity for almost a decade. Cyan-Prince (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I really thing the entire section with "Aspergers" needs to be completely re done and added in something about the controversial nature of the term as it is an issue in the autism rights movement. Hans aspergers was a nazi and the term is completely outdated! Bottledfizz (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Rainbow infinity meaning, autism specific or neurodiversity wide
Twice now I've altered the image description for the "rainbow infinity" symbol from describing it as a neurodiversity symbol to specifically a symbol for autism. Both the citation on the page and the reputable sources I've been able to find in my own research have only made reference to the symbols use for autism, there is no mention of the broader neurodiversity movement. If people are going to keep changing the description to say that it's a symbol of the neurodiversity at large, they should also be providing a good quality source to cite for that, rather than leaving the current source which only makes reference to it's use relating to autistic people. Waitingtocompile (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, the rainbow infinity was never made for neurodiversity as a whole, it was only used for Autism Pride Day and overwhelming amounts of victims of autism or allies eventually erroneously used the symbol that only really belongs to that was arguably the considered the biggest name under neurodiversity, for said umbrella term. Sheragirl10 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Problems with article scope
At the moment the overview section seems crammed with irrelevant information, unrelated to the subject of the article. It appears to be an overview of random categories and their relation to autism, not an overview of the autism rights movement. Given it's lack of information on the subject of the article, is there anything written in it worth keeping? XeCyranium (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. Indeed much of the content is on autism and not the movement itself. I would suggest moving some sections over to other articles on autism since a lot of it is good information. FonkayMunkay97 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is a huge problem. The autism rights movement is a movement that argues that autism is not a disorder, disease, or other kind of pathology and that behavioral, biomedical, educational, occupational, and other such interventions to make autistic people less autistic are unethical.
 * I deleted entire sections that I believed were full of nothing of value to the actual topic of the article. But a lot of sections are a mix of relevant and irrelevant things. It is going to take a lot of work to fix this article. 2013creek (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sections you removed were not well-integrated into the article. But many of the issues raised therein often arise in autism rights discussions, so some may have value as context in a section that is more tied to the article. And, well, many autistic people thrive on such context anyways, so some might just be valuable context for the article in general. Indeed some of it will be valuable to other articles as well. I'll link the full diff here for convenience so editors can mine it as this and other articles are improved: Special:diff/1178937056/1182073865 &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, if someone can rewrite these sections in a way that is integrated into the actual topic of the article, then be my guest! 2013creek (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a redirect page to "Neurodiversity movement"?
Why do we got a redirect page if Autism rights movement isn't a movement for neurodivergent as a whole? I mean why, specifically? There are literally other disability observed movements that focus on other disorders and disabilities under the neurodiversity umbrella. Sheragirl10 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Neurodiversity movement" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurodiversity_movement&redirect=no Neurodiversity movement] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- MikutoH talk! 01:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

NPOV-dispute and other tags
I have decided to place a number of tags on this article because of—but not limited to—these following issues: I'd love to be able to fix all these issues myself, but this article is huge. Pinecone23 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Written from a far-from-neutral POV
 * 2) * Lacks an encyclopedic tone, sounding closer to advocacy than objectiveness (e.g. [...] which give them distinct strengths and weaknesses, and are capable of succeeding when appropriately accommodated and supported. This is not to belittle the challenges that autistic people face, but rather to point out that many of these challenges are due to structural inequities that can be remedied through equal access and acceptance of autistic differences)
 * 3) * Biases the reader to believe there are only two sides (medical vs. social model of disability), no in-between
 * 4) * Gives undue weight to certain viewpoints and controversies and excludes context (e.g. "Curing" autism is a controversial and politicized issue. Doctors and scientists are not sure of the causes of autism yet many organizations like Autism Research Institute and Autism Speaks have advocated researching a cure)
 * 5) * Sections that discuss criticisms of the movement do so without adequately presenting counterarguments nor the context of the criticisms
 * 6) * States opinions as facts (e.g. Neurodiversity advocates are opposed to research for a cure, as this aim is a form of eugenics, and instead support research that helps autistic people thrive as they are)
 * 7) Focused too much on Autism Speaks
 * 8) Relies too much on biased and outdated sources
 * 9) Cites sources that don't back up the statement
 * 10) Repeats the same thing over and over (specifically that the movement believes that autism is a natural difference, not a disorder)


 * Deleted some content not supported by the source in the "Opposition Perspectives" section: I think that's the most egregious problem in the article. The content there needs to be sourced to each sentence, which it is not, and it definitely needs to be presented in context with counterarguments. This is especialy important because the organization one of the former quotees was from advocated (from the above) for people to be "put to death by lethal injection" who were part of the neurodiversity movement. These kinds of views should not be presented without at least criticism. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good call on deleting that content! I completely agree; each sentence, especially in sections that are controversial or present opposing views, needs to be sourced and presented in context with counterarguments. To be honest, I do not see the use for this article. Its content is pretty much the same as Neurodiversity, although I believe that article also has similar issues to this one. Anyhow, I am putting Autism rights movement on my agenda for next month (August), so I'll see if I can give it some work then. Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)