Talk:Autistic community

Declaration from the autistic community

I find the declaration touching, but inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'm thinking we should put this on Wikisource, because I don't want to get rid of it. What do we do? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. While I hate moving something like this, I think it can get the article in trouble if they are not used the way they are intended. Recently people got angry at some who tried to use autism articles on Wikipedia as link farms. I am worried things like this might provoke more VFD's on autism articles. I do think it is a good idea to put in on wikisource, and while the text itself is not appropriate for Wikipedia, I do think it is acceptable to write about the declaration on this article page. Q0 16:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just checked Wikisource's policies and it said texts had to be "previously published", and that original contributions from Wikipedians are not to be included. I'm not at all sure of what is considered "published" (for example, is publishment on the web considered previously published?). Q0 17:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Declaration is certainly not written in an encyclopedic manner. If it comes from some particular site, then it needs to be attributed and noted as a quote. If it reflects general feelings in the autistic community, then it needs to reworded to be in third person ("People in the autistic community say...") rather than the plural first person ("We the autistics say..."). --4.246.239.190 07:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The text seems to be from a press release written by Amy Nelson from November 2004. The addition of this section was made by User:AmyNelson around the same time. I've edited the article to try to make it more apparent that this is from a statement produced by some in the autistic community, and not claims being made by Wikipedia. This is probably not an ideal solution. Given the length of the quote, it would be better if the text could be placed elsewhere. Since it was written by a Wikipedia contributor, it seems that Wikisource might not be an option (as Q0 pointed out above). Jeff 08:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did not realize at the time that this section had been previously published in a press release. Since it has been previously published, I'm not sure if it counts as an original contribution by a Wikipedian, so I wonder if moving to Wikisource might be an option. Q0 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I think it's fair to assume that "publish" in this instance denotes something that is simply made public: a letter sent to the UN certainly qualifies. So does Osama bin Laden's videotape speeches, which are in fact on Wikisource. Moreover, bin Laden might in fact be a Wikipedian! You never know. The point is that the wikisource standards should not be taken so literally; I think the intent is clear enough, and that this letter would be more than appropriate for wikisource. 69.37.230.72 10:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

VFD

This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autistic community. Joyous 04:21, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

This is literally written from one point of view and needs a lot of work. I realize this is a contentious issue, but

• A) Refers to a narrow view of the "autistic community" as representing all autistics, which is kind of silly
• B) Catagorizes everyone into two opposing groups and makes a lot of completely incorrect assumptions
• C) That "letter to the UN" is complete propaganda from aspiesforfreedom and needs to be at the very least compared and contrasted with opposing and supporting views
• D) Autism Society Canada - very one sided
• E) Nearly every one of the sites listed in the introduction are from one side of the coin... there are plenty out there that are in the other camp that seek to help (not just with medications etc..) also

I really did a lot of work on other pages, such as autistic culture, on the pov issues, but this one needs is a bit longer and needs a top to bottom rewrite. --RN 00:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote and cleaned up somewhat, but couldn't really add much of anything; Where you said "Nearly every one of the sites listed in the introduction are from one side of the coin... there are plenty out there that are in the other camp that seek to help (not just with medications etc..)", maybe such sites could be listed to show that there is a lot of grey area, cf. the Jessica Park kind of thing. --Bluejay Young 07:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for doing that! I went ahead and squished the remaining issues. Here are some notes:

• I commented out the bit about Autism Society Canada... I'm just note sure how to NPOV that... maybe it needs a counterargument of some kind
• I went ahead and did a "mock" counter to the letter to provide balance... much like the letter it tends to take the extreme side of things some times. Heck, it could be just wrong in some areas... if you want to adjust it please do so :).
• I made a few html-type comments around just to explain a bit... also there are a couple suggestions in there too

Thanks again. Let me know if you have any comments et al.--RN 10:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had another go at rewriting most of the article. I think we need to be clear about what is POV and what is choice of subject matter. I envision this article as being primarily *about* the community that consists of autistic people. It is therefore to be expected that the article would mostly explain the views of that community, and link to such communities. The "autism community" groups that use a similar term but consist of non-autistic people certainly rate a mention as an aspect of this topic, but they're not the primary subject matter. Their opinions about the autistic community certainly should be reported, as should any other significant opinions about the autistic community. Regrettably, the article currently lacks much subject matter other than the comparison of the autistic and autism communities and the list of autistic communities. I think the lengthy letter to the UN doesn't belong here; it should be summarised, with a link to a canonical external copy, and responses to the letter should likewise be summarised. The Autism Society of Canada para seems too specific to include; the article should be more general, so I just included a link to them with a note that there is controversy. 195.224.75.71 16:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I noticed that someone merged autistic community and autistic culture without a discussion on the talk page. It is not appropriate to merge without discussion. First, there needs to be a proposal on the talk page, and people need a chance to state objections. Q0 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I did the merge. My reasoning is that there are more articles than concepts here, so it hasn't been clear what the scope of each article is. The autistic community article has bits of several subjects: autistic culture, autism rights movement, and the non-autistic "autism community". Autism rights is alredy well covered in its own article, so I think what needs to happen is for the culture material to be merged with the culture article. Having "autistic culture" as the primary name of the merged article avoids the problem of the ambiguous "community" terminology which led the autistic community article to give undue prominence to a non-autistic community which is not its real subject; the explanation of the terminology can be relegated to a single section in the culture article. This arrangement also mirrors Deaf community and Deaf culture, which I think is an appropriate model. 195.224.75.71 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think "autistic culture" and "autistic community" are two seprate topics. My understanding is that "autistic culture" refers to values in common, language, and ideas that spread through the autistic community; and that "autistic community" is the organization of autistic people in some sort of social community. So then "autistic culture" is the culture of the autistic community and the "autism rights movement" is the activism of the autistic community. In addition, the autism article already has two seprate sections, "culture" and "community", which are linked to autistic culture and autistic community respectively as main articles for the sections, so if the articles are merged, it might affect the autism article as well. I do think some sections of the autistic community article are off topic and I do think the specifics of what is "autistic culture" vs. what is "autistic community" should be defined, but I'm not sure the articles should be merged since I think they can be seprate topics. Q0 10:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge "Autistic Community" with Controversies in autism. Alister Namarra 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Q0 is correct: there is some overlap, of course, but these are distinct subjects. Ombudsman 22:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The real voice of autism

I removed the slogan from the title. It makes it seem like autistics.org is actually "the real voice of autism" instead of an organization who uses that phrase as their slogan. I believe that is not in keeping with wikipedia policy. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason the group can't be mentioned without their slogan. --Bluejay Young 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

relocating redundant sources

Many of the Community links from Autism are either here already or compliment this article. The main article Autism has been subjected to a growing number of peripherally related links to the point that the primary theme of the main article has been diluted. I have relocated them here since they are relevant to this article. Malangthon 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

forums and chatrooms

I disagree with the removal of references to forums and chatrooms. I have looked through the linked WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:EL and I don't see what's wrong with a description of existing communities. The information is useful, sourced, reliable and encyclopedic. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Autism ribbon.jpg

Image:Autism ribbon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would challenge the use of this image at all! It's use is widespread among only one of the types of "autistic communities"- the pro-cure one, which isn't even the main focus of this article. A lot of members of the autistic community would be very angry seeing this image included here. To them, it's almost as if you had an image of the cleveland indians' mascot on an article about native american communities. As such, it's not exactly a well-accepted and non-controversial image. --Luai lashire 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)