Template talk:Autism resources

Information

For your information : Template talk:Autism films#Presence. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Articles not related to autism

Half of the articles in the "Medical" section of "Autism therapies" don't even mention autism anywhere in the article, namely Baclofen, Haloperidol, Methylphenidate, Olanzapine, Setraline, and Vitamin B12. Muffinator (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sertraline: Autism can partially be cured through this therapy, and others too. Cancina5645 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"People"

Currently, this section lists three people; Jonathan Mitchell, Thomas A. McKean and Sue Rubin. Why these three people? These are not the only people with autism we have articles on. They are not the only published authors with autism, the only activists with autism or any other neutral combination I can think of.

They were, however, added by Ylevental whose editing history is littered with editing on one side of the neurodiversity vs. cure autism dispute. All three authors are distinctly on the "cure" side. Ylevental created two of the articles and recently tried to delete 9 well-sourced neurodiversity articles which were all kept (several were speedy keeps as bad faith nominations).[1]

Now this apparently biased selection. Is there a neutral explanation for this listing? Where are, for example, John Elder Robison and Temple Grandin?

As a remedial step, I am removing the names. Once I have a response or two here, I expect I'll need a broader opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Should I add both sides? I noticed that most of the neurodiversity authors were listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Autism_rights_movement, which is a different template, that's why I didn't add them. Also, when I tried to delete all those articles, I thought about merging the information inside them into different articles, because there are a lot of them, that's why I did it. I thought they weren't necessary, and I didn't know it would be looked down on. Ylevental (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I see: You thought about merging a lot of information from nine separate articles and, as a first step you decided to delete all of them and, by coincidence, all nine just happened to be entirely notable and on the side of a dispute that is entirely opposite your side? Wow.

As for whether we should add "both sides", you seem to have decided that autism is nothing more than the question of whether it is a terrible disease that needs to be eradicated from the planet or the greatest thing in the world. Perhaps there are people involved here in other ways? The simple fact is this: the three anti-neurodiversity authors are not in any way a defendable subset of possible entries here. You selected them entirely based on your POV.

In short, I think the template would be best served by someone other than you. There are probably several hundred names that could be listed as "people" in this template: Authors with autism who are pro and con and neutral on the whole neurodiversity/cure question; researchers and medical authors; authors of autism related fiction; famous people who have/had/may have had autism; legislators connected to autism related legislation; celebrities with high-profile connections to autism; activists' etc. There is, however, no reason whatsoever to select the three individuals you selected, other than your POV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)