![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I'm
I'm not an experienced editor, but I believe the last edit under "Controversies" would violate NPOV and also is uncited? Aoibheannniamh 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, there is no citation and this is a violation of NPOV, so I removed it. Aoibheannniamh 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Celebrities/ Jon Stewart/ mercury & autism controversies
The controversy section, while currently NPOV (good) is also woefully minimal. I'd add more but I'm sleepy. :) The not-merely-unproven-but-repeatedly-disproven "mercury in thimerosal causes autism" controversy is highly topical, and in the news today. The settlement a couple weeks ago of a case that was to be a test case before the Autism Omnibus quasijudicial proceedings has stirred a great deal of interest.
On another topic, I see that Jon Stewart and other celebrities, including Sarah Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel, are attached to an upcoming charity event (overbooked, too-many stars, something along those lines) for Autism Speaks. This may be recurring, and is probably noteworthy. Eh Nonymous (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the article, this is mentioned as a controversy:
- "In January 2008 a critical parody of the Autism Speaks website was taken down after Autism Speaks sent a letter to the parody website's developer, an anonymous blogger who is autistic, asking the blogger to stop using the Autism Speaks name and logo without permission, and claiming the spoof could confuse people looking for information about autism. Other parody sites immediately sprang into existence."[1]
- I believe this is not a true controversy, in the sense of being an important public controversy. It was, I believe, a relatively insignificant problem when compared to a true controversy, which I believe is something of far greater importance and seriousness, generally. Should it be removed?--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
General note
As a general note, posts from online forums are rarely acceptable as reliable sources for encyclopedic content. Articles should be based on verifiable information from reliable secondary sources. If there's a question about using an online forum as a source in a specific context, please seek input here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell Talk 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. The burden of proof is on those wishing to include material. Hence, I'll be moving unreliably sourced controversial material from the article to this page. If better sources are found, it can be re-introduced. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a result of all this two sources in the article were marked as questionable, and I removed them. I removed one of the newly-unsourced claims (couldn't find a reliable source for it), and rewrote the other claim to rely on the New Scientist article, which is reliable. Eubulides (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Text moved from article
Blogs are not a reliable source. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The whole thing was terrible: A said B. C did D. A is responsible for D. Not acceptable, especially when names are named. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The scene occurred in a heavily publicized and publicly viewable video that millions of people have seen. Are you saying it's not verifiable? Perl (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally it created a backlash from the autistic community. Perl (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was that all I removed? No, it wasn't. I removed a series of unrelated snippets which were carefully combined so as to seemingly associate a quite unconnected person with the death of a child. Argument by innuendo is entirely unacceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally it created a backlash from the autistic community. Perl (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The scene occurred in a heavily publicized and publicly viewable video that millions of people have seen. Are you saying it's not verifiable? Perl (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Official View on Vaccines
While the organization's position on the autism/vaccine connection is certainly worth including (figuring out what their angle on it was was the reason I came to this page), the view of a relative of the people who happened to have founded the organization does not give any significant insight into the position of the orginization itself. The position of Autism Speaks on vaccines should be described using information from people who are actually authorized to speak on its behalf. -- 76.204.88.100 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks; I made this change to try to help matters. Eubulides (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Cure Autism Now
In the Mergers section of this article, about Cure Autism Now (CAN), the #1 source is inaccurate I believe, as it is an article on Autism Speaks and the founding Wright parents, and has little to do with CAN. This source seems better, especially the 2nd 4th 5th paragraphs. This source also supports other sentences in the first paragraph of the section about CAN, and perhaps should be used at the end of each sentence.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read all the way through to the end of the first source and you'll see why it's used. You can add the other one too, but please leave the first source in. Soap Talk/Contributions 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I read it through again, and I myself don't see anything that would be a specific source for anything in the first paragraph about CAN in this article. In contrast, at the link I provide, there are numerous and very specific statements that are direct sources for most if not all of the statements in this wikipedia article section on CAN. Could you provide the specific quotes from the New York Times article that you believe serve as a source for that paragraph? Sorry if I'm overlooking something.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about the whole paragraph, but I thought the issue in contention was that CAN was devoting money to a search for "unconventional therapies". Which is taken from this part of the NYT article:
- I don't know about the whole paragraph, but I thought the issue in contention was that CAN was devoting money to a search for "unconventional therapies". Which is taken from this part of the NYT article:
- I read it through again, and I myself don't see anything that would be a specific source for anything in the first paragraph about CAN in this article. In contrast, at the link I provide, there are numerous and very specific statements that are direct sources for most if not all of the statements in this wikipedia article section on CAN. Could you provide the specific quotes from the New York Times article that you believe serve as a source for that paragraph? Sorry if I'm overlooking something.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Quoted from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/us/18autism.html?pagewanted=2': | ||
“ | The most distinctive aspect of Autism Speaks is its alliance with Autism Coalition for Research and Education, an advocacy group; the National Alliance for Autism Research, devoted to scientific research into potential genetic causes, with high standards for peer review; and Cure Autism Now, which has championed unconventional theories and therapies.
Which wing of the merged charity is ascendant? Some establishment scientists and parents now fear it is The Mercurys. They point to Cure Autism Now’s having more seats than the National Alliance does on the board of directors and the growing number of research projects that focus on environmental causes. |
” |
- I think this is the original NYT article that was used to write the paragraph in the first place. It doesnt say anything about the origin of CAN, no. I figured that part was okay.
- Also, I think the general policy is that if the same source is used to support each sentence in a paragraph, it is okay to just link it once from that paragraph, to avoid the ugliness of having every sentence followed by a ref tag. I could be wrong about that being official policy but I've seen it used before. Soap Talk/Contributions 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see. You were providing a source for the specific approach of CAN. I was focusing only on sourcing the general statements about CAN, which can be found in the second link I added.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Controversy section, I read the statement by Alison Singer, and think the statement in the article about what Singer argues is inaccurate, and also lacking in clarity. From the Autism Speaks article, "...Alison Singer, Senior Vice President of Autism Speaks, explained the position on cure is for regressive or low-functioning individuals and not for overall autism spectrum disorders.[16]" Perhaps better: "Alison Singer states that the desire for a cure is often most strongly had by parents of (a) severely autistic children, and, (b) autistic children who have become even more severely affected later in life (a condition referred to as "regressive autism"). Singer states that the desire for a cure may be different among parents of Asperger's Syndrome children, and among person with Aspergers themselves." If you think there is room in the article for it, I could also provide some specific quotes here from Singer.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- This statement should be made more clear I think: "This has led to criticism from some persons with autism for lack of inclusion with the argument that autistics should be included in research and advocacy for themselves.[19]" Maybe better: "Some with autism and Aspergers Syndrome criticize Autism Speaks for not having anyone with autism or Aspergers in the administration of the organization." Unclear statement that "autistics should be included in research and advocacy for themselves." One, autistics are included in research with Autism Speaks. Also the advocacy views of autistics is seriously considered by Autism Speaks. The main point here is the lack of autistics in the Autism Speaks administration. Also, I'm not sure why this is a "controversy". Yes some with autism and Aspergers have criticized this, but a controversy?--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Controversies Section (Debates Section)
Paragraph removed due to concerns that it is a coatrack
Autism Speaks advocates for a cure to autism.[3] Seeking a cure is debated by some persons with autism and some families. In an article to members of The Global and Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership [GRASP], Alison Singer (Senior Vice President of Autism Speaks) states that the desire for a cure is often most strongly held by parents of (a) severely autistic children, and, (b) autistic children who have become even more severely affected later in life (a condition referred to as "regressive autism").[4] Singer states that the desire for a cure may be not as strong, or not held at all, among parents of children with Asperger's Syndrome, and among persons with Aspergers Syndrome.[5] Simultaneously, GRASP published an article for Autism Speaks members to explain that the term "cure" has a medical, scientific, and personal meaning to some persons with autism and other spectrum disorders and thus the use of such a word may both be inaccurate and hurtful.[6]
- ^ Biever C (2008-02-01). "Voices of autism 'silenced' by charity". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
- ^ "Alison Tepper Singer and the Rett Girls". Autism Diva. 2006-05-19. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Autism Speaks, Goals". Autism Speaks. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
- ^ Singer, Alison. "Cure is not a four-letter word" (doc). grasp.org. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
- ^ Singer, Alison. "Cure is not a four-letter word" (doc). grasp.org. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
- ^ Carley, Michael John. "Articles of Understanding: GRASP, and the word "Cure"" (doc). grasp.org. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
Note that only the first statement cites any source other than GRASP. This paragraph seems not to document controversy so much as to provide a platform for GRASP to criticise Autism Speaks. Comments from other editors are welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- From my reading of this section, both sides are represented. There is the statement from Autism Speaks senior vice president to GRASP. And there is the statement from GRASP to Autism Speaks. The controversy, according to the original editor of this section, is that many with autism (especially Aspergers I believe) object in various ways to organizations and others interested in a cure for all autistic and all Aspergers people. Anyway, I thought this section was at least reasonable as it provided both sides of the "controversy" ... but I still was to edit the last sentence to expand and clarify.
- I wanted to add/ask -- should the last two paragraphs of the Controversies section also be removed? I asked about this in more detail in a previous note in this Talk page. Seems the blogger issue is not really a controversy in the strong sense, nor the discussion about how Autism Speaks doesn't have administration members who have autism or Aspergers. Not sure if these are truly controversies. A 'controversy' entails, I believe, considerable public response, action, etc; and considerable and serious media coverage from notable media. Seems the blogger issue and member issue are issues for various people (perhaps a lot of people) but not truly controversies. The blogger issue seems more sensational and tabloid like, and received limited media coverage; the New Scientist article cited is very sensational, and has many overstatements...the "dispute" was actually very small compared to other things, and very short lived, but yes pounced upon by many with and without autism who run blogs and websites. I wonder if both should be removed.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a real dispute between Autism Speaks and those who argue that autism is a condition and not a disorder, and this dispute needs to be covered. It isn't being covered now, with the paragraph removed. However, that paragraph was not good coverage, as it emphasized one group (GRASP) rather than covering the controversy neutrally (it goes well beyond GRASP). It would be better to cite secondary sources about the dispute, and not to refer to primary sources from GRASP itself and from Autism Speaks.
- There is also a real criticism of Autism Speaks's members, which often overlaps the criticism mentioned in the previous bullet. This criticism also should be covered by secondary sources, which is not the case now.
- That the blogger story is small potatoes, and was wp:RECENTism when it was put in. On the other hand, it is the best supported right now (with a citation to New Scientist, a secondary source). I'd be inclined to leave the point in, though it might not hurt to reword the coverage to make it encyclopedic, discussing the general issue rather than focusing so much on that particular blogger.
- Eubulides (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Re first point, yes it's a dispute, but a controversy? Maybe the section should be 'Disputes' or 'Debates'? Also to note, there is another dispute against the people disputing Autism Speaks. That is, it's not a matter of AS providing their goals and statements, and then the other side providing their objections and criticisms. The other side's objections etc are debated...will find some sources...but essentially, among some debates that come to mind, it's argued they are unwilling to face the various realities of autism and their negative impact on the autistics and their families and others, the true nature of the "pervasive impairments in communication, behavior, social interaction, emotion, social and work functioning, thinking, etc; that they are "delusional" in the weak sense of being unwilling to face a widely accepted reality; that their movement/ideas etc are largely psychological, arising from the lack of any major treatment. Things like this. So there are actually 3 sides to the story. But anyway, not sure if this is a controversy, or a debate.
- Re the blogger issue, I wonder if there should be other sources besides the New Scientist article, as the article seems very sensational and not neutral/objective. But anyway, a controversy? Seems more like a transitory debate; and it started with a copyright violation and things related, rather than Autism Speaks wanting to do anything personal to the blogger. This isn't represented in the New Scientist article I believe. I believe Autism Speaks accepts dissent very well, but not when it involves use or manipulation of their copyrighted intellectual property by anonymous website or blogger owners who then start and proliferate gossip on autism forums.
- --ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Removing that one paragraph makes the paragraph immediately before it look stranded. Previously, the article talked about the blogger and the parody site she created, and then the next paragraph explained why some autistics are angry. Now, without the explanation, it just mentions the parody and readers who don't know better will probably think it was just some kid having fun. I think that the paragraph should be restored. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if the paragraph comes back, "regressive autism" doesn't mean what the paragraph seems to imply there. Read regressive autism for info: the "later in life" is usually about 2 or 3 years old. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding regressive autism, thanks for making this point and the reference. Helpful to me.
- Rethinking my previous comments. Regarding the paragraphs in the Controversies section, the so framed controversy between Autism Speaks and anti-cure (put generally) people, is really, I think, a debate between pro-cure and anti-cure, rather than anything specific to Autism Speaks. As such I don't think it is a controversy/debate that is specific to Autism Speaks. And as such, I don't think it should be put in this article on Autism Speaks. In it's place, perhaps better to have a general link in a template, such as the template already existing at the bottom. In the template there is a Controversies section with several wikipedia articles linked It's there that the pro-cure anti-cure and other debates are discussed.
- Again I think the blogger issue started simply as a copyright issue, not Autism Speaks wishing to control what the blogger wrote about. After all, on the Autism Speaks message board, there is considerable dissent - maybe 50% or more of the discussion is dissent, and many people who joined the Autism Speaks message board are fully opposed to Autism Speaks, and their posts and threads are given complete freedom, except when there is outright abuse, personal offensiveness, etc. As such I don't think the blogger issue is remotely a controversy and perhaps should be removed from the article.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- First paragraph of Controversies section. It's a debate between the Wright founders, and their daughter Katie (mother of autistic son Christian) about autism causes and research funding. Is this a true controversy, or rather, a debate? Yes it's a large debate within Autism Speaks, but a controversy? Hope acceptable, I'm going to change the section name to Debates, as this seems more accurate and neutral than Controversies.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if the paragraph comes back, "regressive autism" doesn't mean what the paragraph seems to imply there. Read regressive autism for info: the "later in life" is usually about 2 or 3 years old. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on the film Autism Every Day, I saw today, was extremely biased, poorly sourced, etc etc. I revised it quite a bit and will add some parts of this article's Debates section there. I added the Autism Speaks link next to the Autism Every Day wikipedia link in order to provide a better source than the current wikipedia article.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments on rewrite
- The rewritten lead relies too heavily on press releases. These are less-reliable sources than news articles written by reputable organizations. Wikipedia should not quote from press releases unless there's a very good reason (which there isn't, here).
- "Debates" is not a good title. Rarely are formal debates held. "Disputes" would be better.
- The rewritten text makes it sound like there is a debate within Autism Speaks about whether vaccines cause autism. But the cited source does not say that.
- The rewritten text makes it sound like Katie Wright is a member of, or speaks for, Autism Speaks.
- The rewritten text says that the Wrights personally funded Thierry's film. But the source (Friedman 2007) makes it clear the funding was through Autism Speaks.
- There are too many direct quotes; this raises a WP:WEIGHT and style issue. It's not Wikipedia's job to enumerate every little dispute Autism Speaks has ever had with extensive quotes from primary sources. It's Wikipedia's job to write an encyclopedic article about the organization, preferably relying on secondary sources.
- The article should avoid phrases like "In contrast" unless those phrases are supported by the cited source.
- I made this change to try to fix the article with the above comments in mind.
Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- At your revisions
- Line 1 - I expanded on things by providing a quote from the organization itself on what they do, and provided their press release source for this. Your (and the previous) statement is, I think, incomplete, vague...focuses on only one thing, and they do a multitude of equally important things. I worked to expand on this, to make it fuller and more complete. I provided more information.
- That part is the lead. As per WP:LEAD it's supposed to briefly summarize what's in the body: it's not suppose to cover a topic that is not covered in the body. The lengthy quote you added did not have that property. Also, as a matter of style, Wikipedia normally should summarize what reliable sources say: it should not quote directly from press releases. It's better to use a reliable source about Autism Speaks that is not generated by Autism Speaks itself; and it's better to summarize what it says rather than quote from it. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for correcting me that Katie Wright is not a part of the Autism Speaks administration.
- Line 42 - I thought it would be worth separating the two issues related to the film Autism Every Day, rather than having them in one paragraph, and run into one another.
- That's what the current Autism Speaks does, no? Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- You reverted to "The film was criticized for a scene..." This I think leads the reader to think it was criticized by either most people, or by a major authority on the matter. Neither is the case. It was criticized by some people...actually very few in number comparatively. Most major news sources make no such criticisms, and address the scene directly and have very different accounts of it, such as these sources. Hard-Hitting Look at Autism Is Being Shown at Sundance New York Times, January 21, 2007 Uses of Disenchantment: TV Anchor-Mom Fights Autism and Films It New York Observer, June 4, 2006
- Normally I wouldn't interpret "film was criticized" in that way. For example, when Wunderlich wrote about Pinocchio by saying "Disney's film was criticized for frightening children", I'd interpret that to mean some critics said it frightened children, not that all critics said that, or that a major authority said it. That being said, it wouldn't hurt to briefly add something saying who criticized it. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I added "commissioned and paid all film costs", taking this directly from the Fox News article This makes things more specific...it was vague before.
- Now that you've clarified that Katie Wright is not a part of Autism Speaks, I myself don't think the paragraph on the dispute between she and her parents (the founders of Autism Speaks) is relevant for this article on Autism Speaks. It's a familial dispute, not an inter-administration dispute. While interesting, perhaps not relevant to this encyclopedic article. I think the paragraph should be removed. (Also the paragraph on the blogger issue, and the continued removal of the pro-cure anti-cure debate which is not a debate specific to Autism Speaks but rather a more general debate that is covered in other wikipedia articles, especially at the articles linked below in the Controversy part of the template.
- I wanted to note that I've noticed persistent attempts in articles about autism, autism organizations, autism books, films, certain autistic people, to add as much critical, sensational, etc material as possible. I myself don't think these Controversy, Dispute, Criticism sections should be allowed. Everyone can do their own articles, and let people go where then want on wikipedia. A lot of people want to steer people around on wikipedia for particular biased purposes. Same with the templates that are added here and there.
- I'm not a fan of Dispute sections either, but Autism Speaks is a controversial organization, and this controversy needs to be covered somehow; if not in a Dispute section, in some other way. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to not agree that it is a controversial organization. Yes there has been criticism, but whether it is to the degree that warrants that the entire organization can be characterized as controversial is debatable, and likely not true. It is controversial to certain people, but on the whole, not, I believe.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious if others agree with the recent edit of my previous editing (expanding, quoting, sources, etc).--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- Regarding a comment you made at the top in the Talk page You objected to the removal by the other editor SHEFFIELDSTEEL. My comments within your quote in bold. You wrote: "There is a real dispute between Autism Speaks and those who argue that autism is a condition and not a disorder, The discussion in this article was not about condition vs disorder, but rather, regarding the desire for a cure and this dispute needs to be covered. Autism Speaks as a whole, I believe, doesn't dispute the anti-cure anti-disorder parties. The statement by Autism Speaks's Alison Singer was more of a personal message to GRASP, and didn't contain any dispute against anti-cure parties. She simply expressed understanding for the lesser or absent of desire for a cure etc among some with Aspergers and some parents of children with Aspergers. You won't find anything on Autism Speaks extensive website, nor any of their statements to the press with disputes against anti-cure and anti-disorder parties, I believe. From what I understand, Autism Speaks doesn't engage in these disputes. It isn't being covered now, with the paragraph removed. However, that paragraph was not good coverage, as it emphasized one group (GRASP) rather than covering the controversy neutrally (it goes well beyond GRASP). It would be better to cite secondary sources about the dispute, and not to refer to primary sources from GRASP itself and from Autism Speaks." I think the objections by parties against Autism Speaks should be kept in their own articles, and there are plenty of those articles...see the template controversy section. Also, I myself tend to think your trying to press this matter with getting these arguments into the Autism Speaks article...you seem to have a strong need to have these arguments in this article. And, "There is also a real criticism of Autism Speaks's members, which often overlaps the criticism mentioned in the previous bullet. This criticism also should be covered by secondary sources, which is not the case now." Seem my previous comments --ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm new at wikipedia so apologize for not being that familiar with editing formatting, rules, etc.
- Regarding a comment you made at the top in the Talk page You objected to the removal by the other editor SHEFFIELDSTEEL. My comments within your quote in bold. You wrote: "There is a real dispute between Autism Speaks and those who argue that autism is a condition and not a disorder, The discussion in this article was not about condition vs disorder, but rather, regarding the desire for a cure and this dispute needs to be covered. Autism Speaks as a whole, I believe, doesn't dispute the anti-cure anti-disorder parties. The statement by Autism Speaks's Alison Singer was more of a personal message to GRASP, and didn't contain any dispute against anti-cure parties. She simply expressed understanding for the lesser or absent of desire for a cure etc among some with Aspergers and some parents of children with Aspergers. You won't find anything on Autism Speaks extensive website, nor any of their statements to the press with disputes against anti-cure and anti-disorder parties, I believe. From what I understand, Autism Speaks doesn't engage in these disputes. It isn't being covered now, with the paragraph removed. However, that paragraph was not good coverage, as it emphasized one group (GRASP) rather than covering the controversy neutrally (it goes well beyond GRASP). It would be better to cite secondary sources about the dispute, and not to refer to primary sources from GRASP itself and from Autism Speaks." I think the objections by parties against Autism Speaks should be kept in their own articles, and there are plenty of those articles...see the template controversy section. Also, I myself tend to think your trying to press this matter with getting these arguments into the Autism Speaks article...you seem to have a strong need to have these arguments in this article. And, "There is also a real criticism of Autism Speaks's members, which often overlaps the criticism mentioned in the previous bullet. This criticism also should be covered by secondary sources, which is not the case now." Seem my previous comments --ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- At your revisions
(outdent) No problem with formatting. It sounds like the main controversy here is whether there is a controversy :-). But my experience in reading articles about Autism Speaks is that, like any sufficiently large organization that deals with autism, there is controversy about it. For example, here is a recent article in a reliable press source that talks about the cure dispute (and other disputes) with respect to Autism Speaks:
- Jardine C (2008-11-09). "Should we want to cure autism?". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
- I wanted to reiterate something I mentioned above, now buried I guess. Regarding the anti-cure and anti-autism-is-a-disorder parties, there are criticisms of their position as well, but not formally from Autism Speaks. I recall Diane Sawyer in a linkable Good Morning America interview (which I'll try to find shortly) saying about a parent disinterested in a cure for her child and believing that nothing was in need of being changed for her severely non-verbal autistic child, that the parent was in a kind of self-serving denial; Sawyer used a more neutral and sensitive phrase though. Anyway there is this 3rd side to the debate, and I'll try to find sources for it. Generally, it's argued anti-cure etc parties are unwilling to face the various realities of autism and their negative impact on the autistics and their families and others, the true nature of the pervasive, severe impairments in communication, behavior, social interaction, emotion, social and work functioning, thinking, etc; that they are "delusional" in the weak sense of being unwilling to face a widely accepted reality; that their movement/ideas etc are largely psychological , from the lack of any major treatment, etc. So maybe this side of the debate should also be covered. Criticisms of the criticizers of Autism Speaks.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly the whole dispute should be covered, but with due WP:WEIGHT since this is supposed to be an article about Autism Speaks, not about all the controversies in autism (we have Controversies in autism for that). A good way to have proper weight is to try to cover the various disputes with about the same weight that reliable sources about Autism Speaks use. Eubulides (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This sort of thing should not be swept under the rug; Wikipedia needs to cover it. I agree that the current coverage is not that good (it emphasizes relatively minor issues like that blogger); but overall there does need to be good coverage. Perhaps the Jardine article could be used to improve the coverage in Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- About the re-revised sentence at the top of the article "The Wrights founded Autism Speaks to help find a cure for autism spectrum disorders ....[1]" This is fundamentally incomplete, and misleading. See my earlier comments, and my previous revision. Why did the Wrights found Autism Speaks? Ask them; they are the authorities on why they founded it. And what do they state? I quoted it before. Again, to "accelerate and fund biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments and cure for autism spectrum disorders; to increase awareness of the nation's fastest-growing developmental disorder; and to advocate for the needs of affected individuals and families."[1] If this is too much quoting, then why not simply paraphrase it, and include each tenant, not just the cure goal? The cure goal is one of a multitude of things they do.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Aside, I edited the article on the Autism Speaks commissioned film Autism Every Day. It seemed full of problems. Could you read my revisions and provide me with your feedback? I still have some things to add there, so it's still very incomplete. But it seemed like yet another article set up for the attack by certain autism rights movement parties who seem often involved in neutrality issues, biased recruitment issues, lacking citation issues, providing forums blogs and personal websites as sources, etc etc.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but the lead paragraph is supposed to be incomplete. See WP:LEAD: the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, and by necessity it is supposed to omit lesser details. For example, the lead's current "promote autism research" accurately and adequately summarizes the quote's "accelerate and fund biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments and cure for autism spectrum disorders". The problem here is not with the lead, it's that there's nothing in the body that talks about this aspect of Autism Speaks. I suggest adding a new section History, which paraphrases the quote you mention, and which adds further details about the history (e.g., founding date, founders, etc.). This is all info that is currently summarized in the lead and really needs expansion in the body of the article.
- I responded in Talk:Autism Every Day #Neutrality re that article.
- Eubulides (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- The first two sentences of the first paragraph of the article are redundant ... the Wrights 'founded' it for .... Next sentence, the Wrights 'founded' it for ...
- I previously edited it to make it clearer, more expansive, to do away with the redundancy, etc. All my edits were removed I believe. Unclear why.
- Again the #1 source is not neutral. 'Autism debate strains a family and its charity'. In my opinion it's an attempt to immediately steer the reader into being exposed to various disputes. It's an article centered on some negatives....it's a somber article throughout. In the first paragraph of the Autism Speaks article, the issue is about the founding of Autism Speaks, and the source should be specific and limited to this I think, not a large article primarily about the Wright's inter-familial problems, and problems with the contractual and payment arrangement for the movie they/Autism Speaks commissioned Autism Every Day. And again this #1 source is used 8 times. To me, this is very unacceptable. I just did see the two new sources below here in this Talk page...to me they seem irrelevant...there is no relevant information to, for example, the simple needs of the first paragraph...and the article is prohibitively long and contains a massive amount of totally irrelevant, complicated information.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the #1 persistent link (used 8 times in article) from the Cure Autism Now section of this article. See my comments from over the last several days, starting with my last one above. Yes I know the existing source, which I added recently, is a press release from Autism Speaks about CAN and Autism Speaks, but it seems to be a very clear statement from them about each organization. It's simple, and factual. They are saying what they do. We don't need others (other media) to tell us what they do, right? If I want to tell you why I started my company X and what my company X does, I'll tell you...I know better than others...any any press releases about my company X that use my statements are just as good. I don't need any media to tell you what I do. I'll look for other articles that are about CAN, it's origin, the people involved, and not articles that include a substantial amount of negative content, outstanding debates, dated debates, controversies, criticisms, etc. Am curious of others opinions on this. (I wanted to see if others could be involved besides the couple people so far...how do I do this)?--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting the redundancy with "founded". Can you suggest a briefer wording that removes the redundancy?
- The edits to the lead were removed, as described above, because they altered the lead so that it no longer summarized the body, and because they introduced extensive quotes from press releases. It is better for Wikipedia not to rely heavily on press releases from organizations it describes, as they are (almost by definition) not neutral sources. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should briefly summarize the body.
- The New York Times article is a reliable source, and covers Autism Speaks more neutrally than an Autism Speaks press release would. Please see WP:RS on why Wikipedia prefers reliable, third-party sources to press releases.
- When giving a source for a fact X, there's no major need to prefer a source that talks only about X. What matters most is whether the source is reliable; that's far more important than the specificity of the source.
- The two sources (Singh et al. 2007, PMID 17237806; and Silverman & Brosco 2007, PMID 17404137) were suggested as sources for the merger of Autism Speaks with Cure Autism Now, not as sources for the lead. They both address that topic, albeit briefly. These sources have the advantage of being published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
- In rereading my comments, I fear that they are coming off as being a bit too forbidding. They aren't intended to be that way; I have a telegraphic style, as I'm often typing in a bit of a hurry, and sometimes it comes out too clipped. Anyway, the main thing here is to find reliable sources, and to accurately summarize what they say. Third-party sources are better (see WP:RS). Peer-reviewed sources are better (see WP:MEDRS). A large part of the work in writing a solid Wikipedia article is coming up with good sources.
- Eubulides (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional sources
- A separate question. I noticed that most of the additional sources I linked have been removed or changed to the following one, and in a multitude of places (8 places I believe)
- ^ a b c d e f g h Gross J, Strom S (2007-06-18). "Autism debate strains a family and its charity", New York Times. Retrieved on 9 October 2007.
- This appears overused (8 places I believe)...also there appears to be bias in using it this much as the article is largely a critical and negative one, which only tangentially mentions some of the positive purposes of Autism Speaks. There are many other more neutral, non-critical articles that could be used about the positive aspects of Autism Speaks...I'll check some more, and I think I provided some in my first edits. See my previous additions and edits that were largely removed.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it is overused, but all eight of those links have been in the article since before you arrived: compare the current state of the article to the way it was back in September. Even the one in the CAN paragraph was there in September too. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Recently I added some different sources at the now redirected Cure Autism Now article...will try to find some more shortly. Should I add those sources here now? I think they add some variety, and neutrality. But yes they appear to be press releases, but to me they seem informative. But I'm sure there are major press articles on the merger (New York Times, etc etc). At the CAN Talk page, a recent comment in reply to my comment there has these links to my recent revisions.Here is the page as it existed immediately before I redirected it (you can find all of the old revisions in the page history; they haven't been deleted).
- --ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not really an authority on the science of autism or what goes where; I'd wait for Eubulides if you want advice on something like that. Personally I'd say go ahead and add them to the article. Most of what you've done so far seems to be basically agreeable. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it is overused, but all eight of those links have been in the article since before you arrived: compare the current state of the article to the way it was back in September. Even the one in the CAN paragraph was there in September too. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- A separate question. I noticed that most of the additional sources I linked have been removed or changed to the following one, and in a multitude of places (8 places I believe)
(outdent) The sources aren't terrible, but they are press releases and we really should prefer secondary sources such as Gross & Strom 2007 when available. I did a quick Google Scholar search and found the following sources on the subject published in scholarly journals, which would be better.
- Singh J, Hallmayer J, Illes J (2007). "Interacting and paradoxical forces in neuroscience and society". Nat Rev Neurosci. 8 (2): 153–60. doi:10.1038/nrn2073. PMC 1885680. PMID 17237806.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Silverman C, Brosco JP (2007). "Understanding autism: parents and pediatricians in historical perspective". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161 (4): 392–8. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.4.392. PMID 17404137.
Or perhaps you could find something else published in a reputable newspaper, which would be better than press releases anyway. Eubulides (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Cure Autism Now redirect RFC
There is apparently some debate as to whether Cure Autism Now should be merged and redirected here. I have initiated a request for comment on the talk page there and any and all input is welcome. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was useful when the redirect went directly to the CAN section of Autism Speaks, rather than to the top of Autism Speaks. I also did some revisions and additions of the CAN article earlier today, and I myself think it expands on CAN better than before, and gives a better variety of sources than the one source used 8 times at the AUtism Speaks article that is quite negative and critical in content. It's like the editor wants to expose the reader to all of the negative material in that source where ever possible. Seems other sources could be found that focus on certain things and not the critical, negative, controversial material. For example, just the merger. Then, just the goals of CAN and Autism Speaks. Etc. Not the disputes over payment for the Autism Speaks movie Autism Every Day and the disputes over what was portrayed in a brief instance the movie and why. Etc.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Those of us who support the merger, I think, can all agree that if it's merged it should go to the CAN section instead of the top. MastCell might have just not noticed that it was like that before when he restored the redirect. So I'll change it back. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Press release problems
This pair of edits replaced a high-quality reliable source (the NY Times) with press releases (which are lower-quality sources). Worse, the press releases do not support the stated claims. For example, the press releases do not contain the quote "world-class scientific advisers and celebrity fund-raisers like Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Simon". The change log for the edit said "More neutral, relevant source, without unrelated, negative, contentious content". I'm sorry, but this is not correct. Press releases are not more neutral than high-quality articles in the NY Times. Press releases, by definition, paint a flattering picture of the organization issuing the press releases. Furthermore, no matter how "biased" the NY Times is, it is not right to quote the newspaper without properly citing it. I made this further edit to fix the worst of the problem. Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Autism Speaks #Cure Autism Now also relied too heavily on press releases. I found a reliable source on CAN (Coukell 2006) and rewrote the first paragraph to use that source. For the second paragraph, I toned down some of the press-release POV. I also fixed some punctuation problems. Here is the resulting edit to implement all this. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Bias; Administrator oversight needed
- At this point, given the repeated, revisions (today especially) to what was, I believe, more neutral content and neutral sources, and the persistent adding of negative content, usually unsourced, and contentious, and inappropriate for these simple introductions to CAN and Autism Speaks, I think oversight from others is needed. Also as I noted many times, many of the sources, especially #1 is highly negative, biased, and irrelevant to the simply issue at hand, namely to very simply introduce some basic things about Autism Speaks. I'll check with how to request this in the various administrators sections.
- Please also see my comments above.
- My opinion is that the recent editor is fundamentally not neutral. That initially he/she made a round of revisions in the past that were left to remain for a long time, which included 8 citations to the same highly negative, critical, contentious article; yes it is the New York Times, but that article is focused on highly contentious issues, controversies, disputes, and is primarily negative in content. As I noted above, this editor appears to have a need to expose the reader to this source where ever possible. I started to add sources that focused on the simple issues at hand, namely, and simply, providing a source for what Autism Speaks and CAN do, and who founded them and when.
- In the last editors comment above in the Talk page, disputed is the source I added on the celebrity fundraisers [[1]] This entire article is on the fundraisers. It's focused on it alone, along with a statement from Autism Speaks founder Mrs. Wright about the celebrities, and the article is without the negative content the editor feels a need to continuously add.
- Note at the top of this Talk page there is a "recruiting" banner: "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy."
- To avoid another long summary comment by me here, I'll simply refer to my above comments in the Talk page about these various issues. I've provided my input on each of the issues over the last week
- I'm not interested in having this matter go in circles with the recent editor, who appears to have ignored all of the neutrality issues I've raised, and the at least reasonable and neutral editing I've made over the last week, and appears to have a very strong need to continuously add negative, critical commentary, often unsourced, and also often sourced with negative articles. This person appears to have a very strong need to expose the reader, where ever possible, to the contentious criticisms of Autism Speaks and CAN, starting from the first paragraph and the use of that citation now 5 times (down from 8). Also, there is now no citation in the first paragraph, and before I had added several that are at least reasonable. The person appears to still need to have the #1 source at the first one the reader is exposed to.
- If anyone has advise on how to proceed with something like an administrators review or what I should do, I'd appreciate it. I'd prefer to receive advice from editors other than the one involved in the above issues.
- In the last half hour I did some removals of the additions the editor made in the CAN section of this article. To me, they were the hallmark of bias. And the more I try diligently to focus on the positive and simple and basic introductory statements about Autism Speaks and CAN, the more the recent editor alters things to included more and more negative, and highly contentious content, which, also, I believe is not appropriate in simple introductory statements about these organizations. I strongly believe the person is highly biased and should have his/her editing overseen, from the start onward with regard to this article and the CAN article.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I composed the big comment at the start of the next section before seeing the above comments. Please read and respond to it. In the meantime, here are some thoughts in response to your comments.
- It would be helpful to get others' opinions, yes. I will ask for a 3rd opinion and follow up here.
- Press releases are less-reliable sources than sources in reputable newspapers like the New York Times. When both kinds of sources are available, we should prefer the newspapers. Of course, newspapers aren't perfect either, and there are even better sources than newspapers: but press releases are typically highly biased.
- There is no need to cite press releases when we have better sources on the same topic. This merely clutters up the article with less-reliable sources.
- Deleting well-sourced text is not a good idea. We should keep it; it was relevant and interesting. The Autism Speaks article should be all about Autism Speaks: it is not supposed to read like a press release.
Eubulides (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you would want an admin to do. You two seem to be having a disagreement, but this is as civil of a content dispute as I've seen in a long time. You may want to pursue non-binding dispute resolution through WP:RFC or WP:MEDCABAL, as these are considered the lowest level of dispute resolution and are probably all that is needed in this case. Again, that's only if you guys are sure you can't come to some sort of agreement here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. RFC seems a bit heavyweight, and the only time I ever tried MEDCABAL it failed miserably, so I asked for a 3rd opinion in #POV and press-release issues below. Eubulides (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- The thing with MEDCABAL is that it only works if all involved parties are acting in a reasonable manner. That's why I suggested it here, and why it fails in so many other cases. ?Third Opinion is also a good way to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. RFC seems a bit heavyweight, and the only time I ever tried MEDCABAL it failed miserably, so I asked for a 3rd opinion in #POV and press-release issues below. Eubulides (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Coukell-sourced info about CAN
This pair of edits removed text from Autism Speaks #Cure Autism Now, with the comment "unsourced; negative content; persistent adding of negative content where not appropriate; request for oversight of persistent bias and negativity". Taking those comments one by one:
- The text is well supported by the cited source, Coukell 2006, as follows:
- The Autism Speaks text:
- "who were invited to join NAAR's board but declined, impatient with what they considered NAAR's excess of caution in staying with the scientific establishment"
- is supported by the following quote from the cited source:
- "Upon learning that Shestack and Iversen planned to start an organization, the Londons invited them to join NAAR's board. But Shestack was impatient with what he considered NAAR's overly cautious commitment to working within the scientific establishment. During lunch one day, Shestack recalls, London told him, 'You can't hurry science.'"
- The phrase "You can't hurry science" is a central point of the source: it's the source's title. A brief summary of the article's central point is entirely appropriate here.
- The Autism Speaks text:
- "despite an initially negative reaction from scientists, who were concerned whether CAN could carry out rigorous work, and despite what CAN considered to be scientists' reluctance to share their data"
- is supported by the following quote from the cited source:
- "Their brainchild, the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange (AGRE), would find the families, have blood samples taken and arrange for clinical assessments. But the scientific community was skeptical. The initial reaction was 'quite negative,' says Daniel Geschwind, a neurologist CAN brought in as an adviser. The chief concern, he says, was whether a parents' organization could carry out the work with the necessary scientific rigor. Shestack thinks the real objection was the requirement that data be freely shared. AGRE would open its files only to qualified researchers who promised to share the raw data from their analyses, rather than just the summary statistics that usually appear in scientific publications."
- Coukell 2006 is an article in proto, the house journal of Massachusetts General Hospital. The article is far more neutral about Cure Autism Now (CAN) than CAN's and Autism Speak's press releases.
- The text in question is not "negative". It accurately reports actions taken by CAN, and portrays them neutrally. The text is informative about the original motivation for, and major success of, Cure Autism Now.
- I don't (yet) think that oversight of this page is necessary, but if you disagree, please feel free to ask for oversight using the usual Wikipedia channels. WP:NPOV is an important principle of Wikipedia, and it should apply here.
For now I have restored the text, adding a bit more info about the citation. Eubulides (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
POV and press-release issues
This template must be substituted. As can be seen by recent discussions on this talk page, and by this series of edits, ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (OIAD) and I are disagreeing on how to keep Autism Speaks neutral. The topics of disagreement:
- OIAD feels that press releases issued by Autism Speaks and predecessor organizations are neutral, high-quality sources. As per WP:RS #Self-published sources I feel press releases should be avoided, and that it's better to rely on 3rd party sources such as the New York Times and medical magazines (see WP:RS #News organizations).
- OIAD prefers to cite primary sources (press releases) on single topics; I prefer to cite news and magazine articles (by comparison, secondary sources) that summarize broad aspects on Autism Speaks.
- When both press releases and news articles are available on the same subject, OIAD prefers to cite both; I'd rather just use the news article, as the press releases clutter up the article and WP:RS recomments against press releases.
- OIAD objects to (and has deleted) the following text, which OIAD feels is negative and unsourced.
- [Cure Autism Now founders] "were invited to join NAAR's board but declined, impatient with what they considered NAAR's excess of caution in staying with the scientific establishment."
- [Cure Autism Now established the AGRE] "despite an initially negative reaction from scientists, who were concerned whether CAN could carry out rigorous work, and despite what CAN considered to be scientists' reluctance to share their data."
- However, as seen in #Coukell-sourced info about CAN above, the material is well-sourced by a medical magazine. I do not think this material is negative; but even if it were negative, it would not be proper to delete well-sourced material simply because it reports negative information about a subject.
- OIAD has inserted the following text, which reads like press release, most likely because it was sourced from a press release. This text is clearly POV in favor of Autism Speaks, and should be rewritten to avoid the POV:
- "an organization of parents, clinicians and leading scientists accelerating research to prevent, treat and cure autism"
- "whose goal is to speed up progress in identifying the genetic underpinnings of autism and autism spectrum disorders and by making this information available to the scientific community"
- "works to teach members of Congress about autism spectrum disorders and the related activities and concerns of researchers, advocates, and parents"
Obviously this is all written from my point of view. A 3rd-party opinion on all these disagreements would be welcome, as would further comments by OIAD.
Eubulides (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion
- Press releases and self-published information can sometimes be used as a source for what an organization thinks, as they are official communications from that organization. However, outside that limited use, they are not acceptable sources. In the edits linked to above, they are being used to support statements that are presented as fact. They are not reliable for this use, and independent material would need to be found.
- By way of example, "Foo Group states that bar causes cancer[1]", cited to a Foo Group press release, is fine, provided undue weight is not given to that position by including it at all. However, "bar causes cancer[1]", cited to that same press release, is unacceptable without an independent reliable source. The usage here resembles the second case much more than the first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm limiting the use of press releases to "for what an organization thinks, as they are official communications from that organization."
- What an organization's goals are is found by asking the organization. Not anyone else.
- Anyone else who states what the organizations goal's are has received the information from the organization itself. They otherwise wouldn't know.
- Press releases are the best source of information in specific instances, such as how I've used them.
- Over the last couple days, I've added many more NEWS articles to supplement the press releases.
- Editor Eubulides appears to be disruptive -- intollerant of more neutral changes, intollerant to being open to other sources, unwilling to alter what I believe is his obsessive need to use the one negative source where every possible (at first used 8 times throughout article (Autism Debate Strains A Family) which is about the inter-familial dispute among the Wrights (founders of Autism Speaks), and bickerings among the Wrights and the movie producers, allegations and gossip in article being thrown around about payment for the movie etc.
- Third opinion so far is entirely inadequate. Doesn't show a basic understanding of the issues involved in this editing problem.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed the new press-release material
- Thanks for the third opinion. I have removed some of the press-release material that was added in the past couple of days, keeping the sources that were not press releases (except for one source from the CDC which was not about either Autism Speaks or its predecessor organizations; there must have been some confusion there about similarly-named organizations?).
- This is just part of the job; more later. Even if all the newly-added press-release material were removed, there would still too be much text that relies on press releases, but that's another topic and anyway the older text has fewer point-of-view problems so it's less urgent.
Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
RFC on debate over POV and user conduct
(The original title of this section was "WP:RFC Independent opinions requested for entire debate over last week about Autism Speaks article, and conduct of users Eubulides and Ombudsman", but that title is overly long for logs and cross references, so I shortened it to "RFC on debate over POV and user conduct". Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)) Template:RFCecon Reason: Likely persistent bias by overusing non-neutral source; repeated refusal to accept reasonable and productive additions, revisions, and sources; failure to understand that press releases are being used in a very limited way; unwilling to accept alternative sources to overused, negative source that is focused on other issues (familial dispute within Wright family; contractual dispute between Wright family and movie producers Autism debate strains a family and its charity, article in general focused on negative, contentious, and unrelated aspects of Autism Speaks and only tangentially mentions the things that the user is citing it for...there are better sources...user makes no attempt not accepts any other sources. Ombudsman persistently adds non-neutral content.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're talking apples and oranges. Ombudsman (talk · contribs) has, in the words of the Arbitration Committee, a "long standing history of tendentious editing of medical articles, often citing sources of doubtful reliability." He is correspondingly on probation and is to be banned from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing. So if that's a problem, don't waste your time; I'd suggest just leaving a note with diffs at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, because this is not exactly the first time he's abused this project.
Eubulides, on the other hand, is an excellent editor with a long history of solid and neutral contribution to medical articles. He's done good work in fixing bias and inaccuracies in autism-related articles. So it might be worth going the extra mile to reach some sort of understanding or consensus. No comment on the underlying issue here, which I haven't reviewed at this point, but just a meta-2-cents. MastCell Talk 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- On his talk page, I see this quote about Eubulides from Ombudsman [2]: "Eubulides is hereby awarded the Tireless Contributor Barnstar in appreciation for excellent ongoing work to assure that issues related to autism are more completely referenced and well presented within the Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! --Ombudsman (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Two of the recent textual additions by Eubulides [3] to the Cure Autism Now section of the Autism Speaks article were, in my view, tendentious etc. I think he left them removed after I removed them, but I mention it to indicate the users tendency toward bias, in my view. The core of the users bias is, I believe, the extreme use (8 times, then down to 5 after my comments, now 2 I believe after my edits today, but likely to be raised to 5+ again) of the above mentioned New York Times article, etc, as I discussed above. I think it's clear to me there is bias, and it's widespread, and quite cunning and underhanded in my view. That is, the text of the Autism Speaks article is largely ok/neutral, and the source does have mention, albeit extremely tangential, of what is being cited, but, (1) the source if FOCUSED on highly contentious, unrelated negatives that the editor, I believe, desperately needs to be in the article, and not only in the article, but spread throughout the article in a multitude of sections, and (2) the source isn't FOCUSED in ANY WAY on what it is being cited for, namely the very simple aspects of the article. So yes it appears the user's text is ok for the most part, and the sources would pass as ok, but the sources, in my view, are being strategically selected to expose the reader to OTHER content that the user desperately needs the reader to see. Please see my first comments in this section about the sources, etc, and what I believe should be done. And, I think an overhaul of the sources should be done, and weighed according to OVERALL RELEVANCY, AND CONTENT, AND RELATION TO WHAT IS BEING CITED.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also think the 3rd party request was deceptively done. I thought what was needed was a 3rd party assessment of EVERYTHING, not just the press release issue. Also, see my comments under the press release issue above [4]--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also about Eubulides, he mentions [5] he removed the press releases, but actually he also removed many news articles (not press releases).--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also think the 3rd party request was deceptively done. I thought what was needed was a 3rd party assessment of EVERYTHING, not just the press release issue. Also, see my comments under the press release issue above [4]--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "Autism Speaks and Cure Autism Now Complete Merger" (Press release). Autism Speaks. Retrieved 2007-11-01.