Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism rights movement/archive2

Autism rights movement

See old review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism rights movement/archive1

There was a peer review a few months ago for this article while I was absent from Wikipedia. One of the issues brought up in that peer review is that the article makes a number of very broad statements. I wrote the majority of the article, and part of the reason of broad statements is that I wrote much of it when I was a newbie, and did not know as much about WP policy back then. I would like to reword the broad statements but am not entirely sure about how to do it. For example, let me take the statement:

... they prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person.

There is a reference [1] where Jim Sinclair makes that assertion, and another one [2] where Autistics.Org claims that most autistic people support that assertion, and a New York Times article [3] that states that Michelle Dawson supports the assertion. Would it be sufficient if I changed instances of "some people believe" by stating specifically who makes the assertions? Would that deal with the problem of broad statements? Some possible suggestions I have for rewording the example I gave are:

Some autistic people prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person.
Some autistic people, such as Jim Sinclar, Michelle Dawson, and the people at Autistics.Org prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person.
Some autistic people, such as Jim Sinclar, Michelle Dawson prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" instead of "people with autism" or "people who have autism", because "person with autism" implies that autism is something that can be removed from the person. Autistics.Org claims that most autistic people hold this position.

Q0 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to know if the referencing system of the article is sufficient. Most of it is referenced with inline links. Q0 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Q0 - I started the last peer review (and have worked a good deal on the article myself). Anyway, this article still suffers from various issues. I think you are getting there though :). One thing that needs help are the instances of weasal words, esp. "Opposition to an alleged insulting view of autism", for example. Another is the length - I've did this several times in the past, and really instead of seperate articles it needs to be a bit more pithy and the paragraphs need to be compacted for flow, as short paragraphs will kill you at FAC time.

Also, statements like

"In January 2006 ASWC formed a democratic advocacy movement for parents and individuals with any form of autism. Based upon ideals of free speech, it provides a forum to debate issues without censorship of points of view that are disagreed upon. The forum is constructed to be accepting of all viewpoints respectfully. Its principal owner is Nathan Young from Fortuna, California."

Could get intrepreted as an ad for the group - try to stick to what it really did and why it is important.

Finally, as you mention the referencing system probably should use the new ref system we have - you can take a look at basically any of the recent featured articles or others like Microsoft to get an idea of how to use it - basically if you were to use a link it is like <ref>{{cite web|url=mysite.com|title=something important}}</ref> and then in your references section at the buttom just put <references/>. Additionly, the broad statements as you mention probably don't help much - in the above example you gave a better way would be to do something like:

Jim Sinclar, Michelle Dawson and some other autistics prefer to be referred to as "autistics" or "autistic people" as they believe terms such as "person with autism" imply that they could be cured of their autism.

Also, in terms with excess text an example of what to cull is just from above - "Autistics.Org claims that most autistic people hold this position" - as it is just a website claiming something and really unless they have evidence to back it up it shouldn't even be mentioned, plus even if you do do that then you'll need to explain why the difference between the two terms is such a monumental deal.

Hope that helps

Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think statements that Autistics.Org makes a claim should be in the article since the movement is a large part Internet based, so websites should be considered a noteworthy part of the movement. Q0 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more note to avoid FAC troubles - if a list can be written out in prose do so - try to keep to one or zero lists Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the sort of stuff I'm talking about, see this diff. This article has a ways to go though because a bit more POV has crept in since the last peer review. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback RN. I agree with you about the weasle words and I would like to fix those. As for too many sections being lists: I think the list in the "responses to criticisms" section would work better as paragraphs. I think the "Individuals" section works better as a list, but wouldn't mind changing it to prose and I am open to combining it with the "Websites" section. I still think the best way to deal with the size of the article is to move detail into new articles because that will accomodate people wanting small, medium, and large amounts of information. Right now, people wanting small amounts of information can read the introductory section and people wanting large amounts of information can read the whole article, but people wanting a medium amount of information are not accomodated. I hope that by moving some sections into new articles, I can accomodate people wanting small, medium, and large amount of information. In addition, I think the "controversy" section (especially the "criticism" subsection) is incomplete and will continue grow. Therefore, I think moving detail to new articles is the best way to deal with the size of the article. Q0 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]