Talk:Autism Every Day

A fact from Autism Every Day appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the film Autism Every Day, though praised by many parents of autistics, has been heavily criticized by people with autism?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/June.

Wikipedia

Disability

Autism Every Day is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Autism Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

One of the blog sources is a broken link, and a message board is not a reliable source. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 14:58

McCarron reference

I'm not sufficiently confident to remove this paragraph from the bottom of the article but it does have one too many "may have"s in it for encyclopaedic mention. Has anyone else linked the video to the killing? If yes, then they should be cited. If not, then it had better come out. David | Talk 15:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your concerns about this paragraph. I quick web search only finds a connection between the two in people's blogs. I'm moving the paragraph in question to the talk page right now (immediately below). It currently looks like speculation, and shouldn't go back in without a good reference, IMHO Chovain 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Every Day also might have been a catalyst for the death of Katherine McCarron, an autistic toddler who was strangled to death by her mother, Dr. Karen McCarron. The death of the toddler happened a few days after Autism Every Day was released and Dr. McCarron might have seen the video. It is unknown whether or not the video influenced her to kill her daughter, but it is a possibility that the depressing mood of the video might have caused her to feel that there was nothing worse than autism. Ironically, many people sympathize with Dr. McCarron for why she killed her daughter, much to the dismay of autistics.

Image

Would it be worthwhile getting a screenshot from the film and inserting it into the article under a {{film-screenshot}} rationale? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verify

No citations, and weasel words. - FrancisTyers · 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Skinnyweed 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange wording used for the "Did You Know" from the front page. Was there not a better fact to use? --GoAround 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I removed the weasel-worded sections on various reactions. The only sources given are the film's site itself, a message board, some blogs, and a bad link; in other words, no reliable sources. I'm going to suggest the page be removed from the DYK. Deltabeignet

Neutrality

I revised the article considerably, as it struck me as highly biased, poorly sourced with YouTube and a blog, non-neutral. I made notes in my revisions. Basically, a very unfairly written article, except for the first paragraph. See the Autism Speaks article Disputes section for some discussion of the film and issues surrounding it. I'll plan to add that discussion here, with the notable sources etc.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling this article, as it indeed had real problems with WP:NPOV. You made some good changes, but unfortunately more work is needed, as the rewrite went a bit too far. For one thing, it omitted some useful info from the synopsis. For another, it omitted all criticism. The old version of the article was quite bad, since it cited only a YouTube post for the criticism (eeuuw!), but surely there are better sources and the criticism is real and ought to be mentioned.
To be honest I wouldn't spend a lot of time on this one, as the topic is not that important or notable. If your time is limited I suggest looking at more-important articles that need attention, such as Controversies in autism, Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, High-functioning autism, etc. Just use the Google search "autism vaccine site:en.wikipedia.org" and you'll find lots of articles, most of them more important than this one.

Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article

I'll shortly remove the quotations and add other content directly related to the quotes. Neutral, simple, basic content. I'll try to remove some or all of the press releases, and leave and add to the other sources cited.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disability reference

3rd paragraph of the article, the reference 13 does not have an Internet accessible source, and the link doesn't go to a source.

Internet accessible sources are not required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph does not have references: "Disability rights advocates have criticised the film for its concentration on the negative aspects of the condition to the exclusion of the positive."
The second sentence of the 3rd paragraph has no reference: "One interview in the film that drew significant controversy was that of a mother describing that the only reason she did not kill her autistic daughter was because she had another non-autistic daughter." Also, it's interpretation is contentious and inaccurate, and ignores a larger more important context of the video.
I'll remove this paragraph then.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sentences you state are not referenced, are. The book reference (Stuart Murray (2008). Representing Autism: Culture, Narrative, Fascination. Liverpool University Press, page 135. ISBN 978-1-84631-092-8) covers the entire paragraph; it does not need to be IBID'd for every single sentence.
The reference can be obtained from your local library or book seller. Wikipedia does not require references to be readable on the internet.
Critiques are valid and important, regardless of your (dis)agreement with them. Presenting them in a fair manner is part of a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral POV.

--6th Happiness (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up another book reference for additional support of the last paragraph (Andersen, Robin and Jonathan Gray (2008) Battleground: the media ISBN: 9780313341670 ). --6th Happiness (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I'm trying to build on the comments made before by Objectivity... Lots of revisions before, editing out highly contentious judgments and interpretations and reviews. I recently edited out an editors additions; he put the back and then added more of the same quality; 3rd paragraph of article. Could you look at my comments and the past comments. Seems the editors interpretations are poor...very tangential, not directly related to what he's trying to interpret, etc. 2nd and 3rd sentences. Also, he gives ISBN numbers that don't link to anything. Source cited should be verifiable, with text electronically accessible. Re the general criticism he gives, seems like a review kind if thing ... so I could find good reviews to add along as well. I thought the article as it was was good and factual. If people want reviews of the movie, then why not search for reviews elsewhere, rather than at an encyclopedia. Eg movie review sites, discussion boards, etc.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs don't need to link to anything, and sources do not have to be accessible online. Movie reviews are common in the reception section of Film articles; as long as reliable sources are used, and edits meet other policies, they are fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question presents scholarly media criticism of the film- Murray's Representing Autism (isbn 9781846310928) and Anderson and Gray's Battleground: the media (isbn 9780313341670) are both reliable and verifiable (check your library). Controversy and criticisms are included in other entries about books/literature, for example, Harry Potter or the documentary Jesus Camp. Media Criticism is important because it contextualises the film (or book etc) by examining the political and social impact it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6th Happiness (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await 3rd party opinions and have written to SandyGeorgia and Eublildies.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd paragraph 1st sentence: "Disability rights advocates have criticised the film..." Should be "Some disability rights advocates..." As it is, it expresses that all disability rights advocates think x and y.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another context to the mother, Singer's, statement. It's misleading and incomplete to only assert, as you do, that she thought of "killing her daughter". The true context is that she had an abrupt and passing thought as she was driving with her daughter of driving off a bridge to end her daughter's suffering. By giving the whole account, this provides readers the whole story, rather than only a limited story that could easily mislead readers, as you have done. Also, obviously, there is a great difference between planned murder via various methods and for various reasons (malice, anger, impatience, etc), and unplanned murder caused by loss of emotional control and done for other reasons (emotional turmoil, the suffering of someone suffering from a disease, impairment, etc).--GzRRk 4 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assert my opinion. I added the opinion of scholars to the article. And scholarly criticism is part of a Neutral POV. --6th Happiness (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GzRRk 4, if you are unhappy with the current wording, which is based on reliable sources, your options are to 1) refute the reliability of the sources used per WP:V policy, 2) add other reliably-sourced information, or 3) demonstrate that text included has been cherry picked. Consider the edit warring that both of you engaged in, the best way forward now is to propose wording changes on talk and get opinions from other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 6th Happiness, before adding content you should discuss it in the Talk page and wait for other's opinions, rather than abruptly adding content and your own interpretations likely seen as contentious by many people and with no Talk page input first. The way you did it results in back and forth editing wars, and can be upsetting. The article was factual and neutral before, and should remain as such until decided her outside of the article. Again I'll wait for 3rd party opinions and ask that you do so as well, and I ask that you remove your additions and enter them here instead, until a consensus is reached.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that you must discuss edits before adding content. It is true that you must discuss edits once you have been reverted, rather than edit warring. I don't see anything in the current version that isn't reliably sourced. The article is a stub; more could be added.

Until now, you haven't commented to me at all, although you took time to notify multiple people 1 2 3 that my edits were "contentious", "poor" and "tangential"; now that you finally do comment to me, it is to reprimanded me for edits no more rash than your own (you deleted the entire paragraph without waiting for any input). This appears to be personal and is distracting from the group effort to improve articles. --6th Happiness (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the editor 6th Happiness, in the entire 3rd paragraph of the article, provides interpretations of various sources, but does not provide any quotes from those sources to show what text is being interpreted. Editor provides page numbers for the two sources, and this copy of two pages[[1]], but no specific quotes. Also, it appears the editors interpretations are not NPOV and, if you cour remind me, there is a wikipedia guideline for interpretations made that are reflections more of an editors bias than the text itself; these editors ignore context, grossly mis-characterize what was written, etc. In the mother's case (Singer) she had a fleeting thought while driving on a bridge with her autistic daughter in the car, which would have also resulted in Singer's death. Many people have fleeting thoughts like this. This is greatly different than Karen McCarron (mentioned by the editor) who intentionally planned and carried out and was convicted of first degree murder of her autistic daughter. I'll now remove the editors sentence given it's gross mis-interpretation and mis-characterization and mis-comparison of Singer. I'll again as the editor to discuss his issues and interpretations here where such things SHOULD be discussed, prior to continuing this editing war. If the editor could start a new section in this Talk page on the issues he raises, and his interpretations, I'd appreciate it.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes have been provided; the current text reflects the quotes. GzRRK, if you're unhappy with the addition, I suggest you read the entire books and propose whatever balance you feel is lacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak TO me, rather than ABOUT me in 3rd person to others. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you requested that I stop editing the passage in question, until others gave their opinions, please extend the same respect to me by not editing it yourself either. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overuse of quotes seemed too plageristic to me. If you felt quotes would be better, you could add quotes. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "grossly misinterpret" the sources. If you cannot access the entire books (eg: library) to see that I was true to what they wrote, please ask for book quotes on the talk page. I own one and can quote any page. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book authors did not "grossly misinterpret" the film. They are reporting on the audience reactions. Regardless of your agreement with how some viewers interpret the film, their reactions are relevant. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GzRRk 4, I have repeatedly commented and attempted to discuss with you here (and on the autism rights talk page in one case). You have still never replied to me except to reprimand me. All other times you discuss me in 3rd person to others. You repeatedly remove my work on the article based on your repeatedly stated negative opinions of me and/or the book authors (it's not clear and you seem to conflate them). I have tried to assume your initials edits/removals to be in good faith, and to try to discuss and work with you, but am increasingly feeling that you have no interest in anything but a edit war to bully me out of working on this topic. :-( --6th Happiness (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason that my edits should be subjected to a rule of basically asking permission on talk first, before editing, when this is not a wikipedia rule and others are not subjected to it. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason that my edits must be governed by your opinion, when my edits are on topic, and have reliable sources referenced.--6th Happiness (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait a week for RFC comments from distinguished editors of autism articles SandyGeorgie and Eublidies. After that, I'll begin a dispute resolution process asking for outside opinions on this matter. Please again wait for consensus among other editors before continuing with adding material. The article was as it was From November 2008 to Autust 2009 until you abruptly added controversial content without first discussing it in the Talk page. Let's now discuss it here, fully, and await consensus, before continuing further in the article itself.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "Abruptly" add controversial info in August. The Controversy paragraph was present from APRIL. When you questioned it (and abruptly deleted it), I only restored the paragraph and expanded what was already there by adding input from, and reference data for a second source. --6th Happiness (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub; how long text was present is irrelevant. Wiki articles are dynamic, consensus changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to attempt to follow the edit warring that has happened here, nor an unnecessary RFC, but have cleaned up the article and will watch edits henceforth. Please discuss edits rather than edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that criticism of this film is important, but the description of Alison Singer's statement is kind of biased and isn't what she really said. If I remember correctly, she thought about killing herself AND her daughter because she was afraid she wouldn't be able to get adequate educational services for her daughter. Personally I am still offended by the movie, but the way the quote is being described is unfairly negative.69.120.62.28 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where it was left out that it was a thought of combined killing herself and her daughter; not just her daughter. That I left it out was accidental and, if I wasn't currently blocked, I'd correct that oversight. --6th Happiness (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose wording on talk for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book Quotes for Reception section

From Stuart Murray (2008) Representing Autism: Culture, Narrative, Fascination. ISBN 978-1-84631-092-8

Page 135: "...[the film] drew substantial criticism from disability rights advocates because of its concentration on the condition as one of problems and difficulties, especially for parents. It created particular controversy when one of the mothers being interviewed, discussing the struggles she had endured in searching for a school for her child, commented that the only reason she had not put her autistic daughter in her car and driven off of a bridge was because she has another daughter, who does not have autism."

And from Andersen, Robin and Jonathan Gray (2008) Battleground: the media ISBN 9780313341670

Page 127: "...Though Thierry undoubtly wanted to tell the truth, much of the footage in Autism Every Day is characteristic of nonfiction programming designed to attract ratings. And such dark and uncomfortable relevations are only one side of living with children with autism..."

Page 128: "... Tepper Singer is herself an autism mother who, in the Autism Every Day video, talks about wanting to drive off the George Washington Bridge with her autistic daughter. Many autistic persons and families with autistic children have reacted with outrage and disgust to Singer's statement and have even drawn a connection between her and Karen McCarron."

--6th Happiness (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

Please I'd appreciate if you could read my comments SandyGeorgia and Eubilides and other 3rd party editors.
Tendentious editing
It's misleading, and incomplete, to only assert that mother Singer thought of "killing her daughter". Actually, she had an abrupt and passing thought, as she was driving with her daughter, of driving off a bridge to end both her daughter's suffering. By giving the whole account, this provides readers the whole story, rather than only a limited story that could easily mislead readers, as has been done. Also, obviously, there is a great difference between (1) planned murder via various methods and for various reasons (malice, anger, impatience, etc), such as what Karen McCarron did to her autistic child, (2) unplanned murder caused by loss of emotional control and done for other reasons (emotional turmoil, the suffering of someone suffering from a disease, impairment, etc), and (3) only THINKING about murder and suicide, and in passing, and in a transitory emotional state, that passes, and the thought does not occur again. This is what happened with Singer, as shown clearly in the movie, and as this editor indicated above. Comparing Singer to McCarron is a clear example of tendentious editing.
Also, the editor 6th Happiness provides interpretations of various sources, but does not provide any quotes from those sources to show what text is being interpreted. Editor provides page numbers for the two sources, and this copy of two pages[[2]], but no specific quotes. Also, it appears the editors interpretations are not NPOV , appears to be tendentious editing; this type of editor ignore context, grossly mis-characterizes what was written, etc. In the mother's case (Singer) she had a fleeting thought while driving on a bridge with her autistic daughter in the car, which would have also resulted in Singer's death. Many people have fleeting thoughts like this. This is greatly different than Karen McCarron (mentioned by the editor) who intentionally planned and carried out and was convicted of first degree murder of her autistic daughter.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community effort, and as such, I'd appreciate if you'd talk to me instead of talking about me here and on other people's talk pages.
As someone pointed out above, I left out that Singer said she thought about killing her daught and herself. This should be edited in. Oversights like this can be corrected, building upon the additions to improve the article, instead of just [deleting an entire section] as you initially did, sparking this disagreement ( IOW: Don't revert due to no consensus ).
I am not comparing Singer to McCarron. I am including scholarly reporting on the reaction/interpretation of a segment of the audience which has resulted in controversy about the film. My opinion and your opinion about Singer and McCarron's similarities are irrelevant.
I provided sources. You could have obtained the books at a library. You could have read the two pages linked to in google books. Nonetheless, to expedite resolving the dispute though, I posted book quotes above. Please read my posts before before complaining to others about what you assume I have or have not posted about.
I think the quotes (from Murray, Anderson and Gray's books) are straight forward. If you interpret them different, I am willing to discuss that (note- interpretation of the scholar's critiques - not of the film itself). Please dialogue WITH ME though, instead of about me to others.

--6th Happiness (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are blog postings not considered a sufficient source? I must have read that Singer-McCarron reference in three or four different places right after the murder. I remember Kassianne's in particular. --Bluejay Young (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TALK and avoid singling out editors in subject headings. Also, please focus on content, not editors. I will catch up on this article when I have time, but both editors need to focus on content, a better understanding of policy, and refrain from personalizing content discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know if the quote for the #10 reference is true? Do we have to go to a library or book store and find the book? --GzRRk 4 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, see WP:AGF; second, if you really have reason to doubt, yes, you need to get to a library. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Condemned by real autism activism/assistance/advocacy groups

Like Autism Speaks itself, this film has been criticized by many *real* autism advocacy groups for its demeaning tone and the fact that it treats autistic people in a dismissive manner, choosing to focus instead on the parents of autistics. This is not made clear enough in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00F:84C9:9424:6005:423E:A5D2 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article which requires independent reliable sources. This page is not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autism Every Day. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Singer response

https://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/speaking-out-about-autism-every-day/98.109.183.2 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.163.6 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC) I believe that information about the Wordpress post should be included in the article.72.76.163.6 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]