Talk:Autism

What do the rules on editing medical articles actually say?

There has been a great deal of controversy about causes and treatments for autism among editors. Some editors have very strong points of view and advocate strongly for them

Other editors rountinely dismiss these points of view and delete any edits which state them, often claiming they are in violation of Wikipedia rules, most frequently because, they say, Wikipedia only allows secondary sources in medical articles, ie, reviews of the state of research, rather than papers by the original researchers.

This claim s made often in the past, even though the rules did not support it at all, and in fact, by giving rules under which primary sources could be used, completely refuted it.

A few months back the rules were changed, but, even under the new rules, the oft repeated claim that medical articles can only use secondary sources is simply not true.

I have cut and pasted the relevant section of the rules so that all will know what it says. Basically, it puts restrictions on the use of primary sources, but does not prohibit them. The claim that it does is false, and made by people who know it is false. You know who you are, or at least, you will if you actually read the rules.

Here is the most relevant section:

A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations. A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate textbooks, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources. All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above

End quote

So, the rules for citing primary sources are given above:

1. Edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly.

2. Description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or other reliable secondary sources.

3. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors

I realize the field of autism is full of theories of etiology and treatment that are passionately held and inevitably this leads to fights over content, but the actual rules of Wikipedia allow these conflicts to be discussed, and going to far to suppress content you do not agree with is also a violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of controversy about causes and treatments for autism among editors. I doubt that the causes of autism among editors are any different than the causes of autism in the general population. This is an overview of autism, and a [{WP:FA|featured article]]-- it relies on secondary sources, meets WP:WIAFA, and does not engage Recentism or Newsiness. You can explore primary sources at Causes of autism, always subject to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and other policies and guidelines as to whether certain primary sources should be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's very important people know that Pediactic Biosciences and the UC Davis Medical School MIND Institute are working on a test for maternal antibodies to fetal brain which seem to cause about 12% of autism. If a woman has one autistic child, it's extremely important she get the test for the antibodies before getting pregnant again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Working on a test" isn't encyclopedic-- it's news (which Wikipedia is not, and I'm sure the news media will report it. IF that test is developed, and gains medical endorsement, then it will be included in a medical review and will be encyclopedic, rather than commercial and newsy, content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources on which the test is based, published peer reviewed articles in science journals, ARE includable as long as none of the rules for primary sources are violated. The half a dozen people who repeatedly misrepresent the rules, even after I quoted them at length, do not own this article or Wikipedia. I am sorry but citing the rules when they don't say what you say they do, is bad faith. We are supposed to presume good faith, but there is a big difference between presuming something and continuinte to preten it's true when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.101 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with editors' behaviour, feel free to take it to ANI and see how that goes. Remember to let all involved editors know if you bring this up at ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of saying "call the cops if you don't like it" could you please tell me how I misinterpreted the rules which are used as the excuse of reversing so many valid edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.10.171 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You questioned behaviour, I gave you a remedy. For how you have misinterpreted the policies, see SandyGeorgia's posts on this thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

Please add http://www.youtube.com/user/Skillslivechannel to your external link section. It contains two very important resources: 1) a comprehensive guide to autism, and 2) a video library of over 50 videos and growing on the topic of autism. The page also provides a basic summary. Jballa1927 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jballa1927 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

N Not done, not a reliable link, per WP:EL--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the work that has gone into this article and find it very well done. What I would like to see, however, is a less dismissive approach both to the Wakefield research and the corroborative research. This is an area of contention that is not easily dismissed simply by the finding that it did not represent normative science of the time. I find Wakefield's explanation of the events surrounding the research to be rather persuasive. It is not enough simply to say that authorities condemned the conclusions or labeled them as unethical. Please listen to the recent interview with Wakefield on mercola.com and address the rebuttals he offers, particularly those concerning corroborative results, the pharmaceutical industry's involvement, and the question of adequate study of the risks of combining antigens in one vaccine. Thanks.Richard L. Rose (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Richard L. Rose

The problem is that it doesn't matter if editors of WP are persuaded by Wakefield's explanations and "findings" or not. What matters is only what reliable sources say about autism. I suggest that rather than read/watch the rubbish is published on mercola.com, you buy one of Paul Offit's recent books. He explains the "vaccine overload" issue well (see this paper for an academic but reasonably accessible explanation). You may be surprised to find that his books don't shy from documenting when vaccination really has caused harm (sometimes on a large scale, sadly) -- he wrote a book solely about one such disaster with polio. Colin°^Talk 09:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New intervention study by Pediatrics journal

The Early Start Denver Model, a developmental behavioral therapy for autism, undergone the first, randomized, controlled trial of forty-eight autistic children with decrease in severity level. I think it is worth putting in the article. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e17.full?sid=3a7d325a-1322-4e51-bffb-9dc784411d1f. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

The entire page on Autism seems to have been turned into a hyperlink to a racist 9/11 conspiracy site.

122.149.105.226 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a problem, but it is being addressed. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

AAC

Hey guys - there's a section on the use of AAC for autism at Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Autism - might be the sort of thing this article references? I'll put a couple of bits of content in this article, but I'm wary of messing with such a well developed article...Fayedizard (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

PECS is certainly used quite a bit for sure. Where would we put it and what would we put in? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that - I've just found Autism_therapies - I'll make a note to check over the AAC stuff in there and then maybe come back to the main article - thanks for the reply! :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

PECS is definitely worth noting especially since it is effective in combination with EIBI/ABA. Also I think adding The Early Start Denver Model to the autism therapies and main article would be a good idea. ESDM is a developmental behavioral therapy for autism, which undergone the first, randomized, controlled trial of forty-eight autistic children with decrease in severity level. See here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e17.full?sid=3a7d325a-1322-4e51-bffb-9dc784411d1f. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to find secondary sources to include this information. Yobol (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these good: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948568 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21834171 ?? ATC ^{. Talk} 03:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The first is a primary source (a single randomised control trial), so not something we could use in this overview article - though it might have some limited use at Autism therapies. The second is a review so, depending on the expertise of the authors and the quality of the journal (editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine may offer advice on that), it may be appropriate for inclusion in an overview article - but possibly not this one. That review addresses children with autism spectrum disorders. This article addresses autistic disorder, a psychiatric syndrome affecting a relatively small percentage of people on the autism spectrum. If the authors of that review, or another, address autistic disorder specifically, their conclusions with regard to that may be appropriate here, depending on the strength of the evidence and clinical significance of the effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)