The blogger, Jonathan Mitchell, has his argument about the public perception of low-functioning Autism misrepresented by RationalWiki through their use of a different article. When Mitchell says that the writer Steve Silberman is glorifying low-functioning autism, he is using a different article in his post than the first one given. Also, Mitchell never states homosexuality is a disability in his article. The original article - http://autismgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-you-shouldnt-buy-neurotribes.html
We don't have a conflict of interest policy on RW (nor should we), and the page looks okay at a very quick glance, but someone should probably do a review of this page just to be sure we're not serving as a platform for a hitpiece (BLP and all). Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Emm... I am uncertain if giving the current tone on this page may be beneficial here. I think some of the information is a bit jogged up.
The tone can be critique by sourcing; while: "Neurodiversity does not advocate for all autistics equally. The neurodiversity claims do not assert for equal social effectiveness, but rather that autistics can be socially effective if society changes to accommodate their differences" in practice tries to counter Mitchell it is not strongly stated and could accidental be misread as "neurodiverse advocates not caring for certain autistics" as oppose to "neurodiverse campaigns with diverse approaches." We need to tone the section... a bit better. It could also use more examples from the source 9, to make the section stronger.
Additionally there is the issue of tone when the article notes Mitchell's citing of Thomas Sowell but in a tone of neutrality that could pass mistakenly for a causal reader of this site. The causal is not going to necessary look at the reference; we need to make note of Sowell's unqualified status when it comes to psychology on the section proper. We need to think about how the audience will browse.
I suggest we do a review to ensure this presented the needed information well. Some additional wording and we might be able to present the article more... strongly, especially in the critiques. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)