Talk:Autism spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Autism spectrum was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 30, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Review article collection[edit]

Hi All, I have a PubMed Autism Review article collection, which may be useful. Been busy elsewhere and not much has been added from this year. dolfrog (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Genetic risk factors[edit]

I don't understand why an article in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry is an unreliable medical source. I found another source for the multiple genes involved: but before I start rephrasing and referencing, I would like to know if this is a reliable source (and if not, why not), so I won't do it in vain... Lova Falk talk 11:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


I happened to respond to a query over at the Reference Desk, and noticed that this article doesn't mention the significant ASD gender differential. I found a good secondary sources, with reliable references; in case somebody[who?] would like to add this.

~Eric F (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric, why don't you add it? Lova Falk talk 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I've found other ASD pages where sex difference data gets short shrift. It's apparently a pattern. Leadwind (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary Considerations[edit]

This section was added as part of the Evolutionary Medicine Wikipedia Network. Wikipedia is increasingly used as a medical reference resource by the general public and medical students. This assignment, designed for students in Evolutionary Medicine courses across the country, is designed to contribute to the goals of the Evolutionary Medicine Wikipedia Network (EvMedWikiNet), identified as a priority by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) working group on evolutionary medicine education. The goal of the EvMedWikiNet is to add evolutionary considerations to existing Wikipedia articles and to develop new pages on key terms and concepts in evolutionary medicine. The EvMedWikiNet aims to make Wikipedia entries on Evolutionary Medicine topics up-to-date, reliable, cross-linked and accessible to the general public while integrating effectively with existing Wikipedia content. Please feel free to add/edit this section as you feel necessary. This article was edited by Sarmocid at Case Western Reserve University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmocid (talkcontribs) 19:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed this text one for cut-and-paste copyvio. There is still some too close paraphrasing, text that does not accurately represent the source, text that is WP:UNDUE, and text does not belong in this article (speculative theories about causes, all based on one paper, might be better placed at causes of autism within context and given due weight). There are also WP:MSH issues. I will not revert a second time without further discussion, but I believe there is little of this edit that should be left here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Sarmocid provides a bunch of referenced material about evolutionary medicine and sees it all deleted. That's a bummer. The gene imprinting theory and the EMB theory get no treatment on this page? Sarmocid's material was lengthy, and as Sandy says it's better on the Causes page, but the reader deserves at least some treatment of this topic. Evolution is controversial when applied to human behavior (or at least it used to be), but it's still a notable point of view. Leadwind (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure but editor must 1) paraphrase 2) use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS 3) write in an encyclopedic style. While other editors may be willing to help this bar must be reached before the content is added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Student encounters editor who has a case of IDHT and edits with a POV-- unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


The claim that thimerosal is 50% ethylmercury is confusing. The name ethylmercury suggests it is a compound, maybe diethylmercury, but according to the ethylmercury page it is actually the (mono) ethyl mercury (II) ion, with a +1 charge. The thimerosal page shows a covalent structure for thimerosal, so it does not contain any ions or any ethylmercury in particular. We could speculate that it might dissociate into ethylmercury ions and another ion, but that does not mean it is 50% ethylmercury. I can't help wondering if there is confusion between compounds and mixtures or reactants and products here. There seems to be an unsubstantiated implication that thimerosal is 50% as toxic as ionic ethylmercury salts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straits (talkcontribs) 11:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Autism caused by Birth Injuries?[edit]

Please take a look at this website there are tons of articles here, written by certified doctors and containing tons of references. The contention of this site is that a widely used and recently (last 60 years) adopted delivery procedure is causing brain damage, with Autism being a common result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think those satisfy WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad edit[edit]

But what was written citing [1] as source was not verifiable from the citation given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:E00F:4004:10:0:0:0:3B (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Counter systemic bias CE overdue[edit]

This looks like a sandbox for a Autism spectrum in the United States article.

Meanwhile, we also want a Autism spectrum article. I think, copy-editing with the specific aim of countering systemic bias should be encouraged.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out where you see a problem? I think that would help greatly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. Anywhere US jargon is used, without being couched as such. The first two Lead sentences seem to have about three examples of that.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here are those first two sentences: 'The autism spectrum or autistic spectrum describes a range of conditions classified as neurodevelopmental disorders in the fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5). The DSM-5, published in 2013, redefined the autism spectrum to encompass the previous (DSM-IV-TR) diagnoses of autism, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), childhood disintegrative disorder, and Rett syndrome.[1] '.

Is the issue the referencing the DSM? The DSM is used all over the world, not just in the US. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It's the lead - grounding the topic in more than three authoritative definitions would be excessive and, if only one's to be used, I'm sure this is amongst the best. However, I don't think that contraction should leave the suggestion it is the authoritative definition. I'm sure it's known to highly engaged Wikipedia readers in most countries and that most of those would regard it as a leading document (often informing future diagnosis/practice in their country). Meanwhile, I'm sure most Wikipedia readers who visit are not so pre-informed and most of those are not from the U.S. Thus, in this case I think, a well placed "In the USA, ..." would be in order.
I hope that illustrates a more general WP:CSB perspective. <aside> Further to that, here in the UK I've heard from multiple sources that the content of DSM-5 is considered to be politically motivated, by many in the Autism carers community - in which case, perhaps Wikipedia should be more reserved about relying upon it. </aside>   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the DSM is used worldwide; adding "in the USA" is incorrect. The more correct solution to the problem is to include WHO's ICD crit. in the lead. That has not been done because the entire suite of autism articles has not been updated to reflect DSM5 v WHO ICD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes adding the ICD thing would be fine. To say the DSM is US centric is just incorrect. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sweden calling. For good and for bad we are strongly influenced by DSM... Lova Falk talk 10:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Opposite of autism" revert[edit]

I've removed Williams syndrome from See also for the second time. It was added (twice) by an editor claiming that Williams is the "opposite of autism";[2] that editor then added same to the Williams syndrome article, which I have corrected. We don't add every neurodevelopmental disorder here that has some similarities to autism (eg Fragile X), for that we have, for example, Category:Neurogenetic disorders and Category:Neurological disorders. There's no reason to think that Williams deserves a special mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rett syndrome[edit]

I thought Rett syndrome was going to be pulled out of the autism spectrum in this edition of the DSM. (I don't have a copy.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the Wikipedia articles relating to the DSM IV definitions of autistic issues remain completely out of touch with the recent DSM 5 revisions of last year. Have a look at DSM-5: The New Diagnostic Criteria For Autism Spectrum Disorders dolfrog (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


This paragraph was present at the end of the article, below the navigation templates. As the place is inappropriate, I paste it here:

Reference Page:
*"Autism-Home Treatment." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
*"Autism-Other Places To Get Help." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 21010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
*"Autism Symptoms in Children & Adults - WebMD." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
*"Autism Treatments -- Therapies, Medications, and Alternatives." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
*"Autism Types, Signs, Therapies, Causes, and More." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
*Feature, R. Morgan GriffinWebMD. "Caregiver's Guide to Autism Symptoms." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
*Fundukian, Laurie J., and Jeffrey Wilson. The Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Health. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2008. Print.
*Fundukian, Laurie J. The Gale Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2010. Print.
*Narins, Brigham. The Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health. Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
*"Screening and Diagnosis." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
*"Treatment." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
*"What Is Autism? Symptoms, Causes, Treatments, and More." WebMD. WebMD, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.

If anybody would like to integrate it properly in the article, feel free to do so. Coreyemotela (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Autistic-first language versus person-first language[edit]

A consensus was reached on Talk:Autism, that Wikipedia's style should favor the phrase "autistic person" rather than "person with autism". We apparently need an entirely separate consensus in cases where "person with autism..." is followed by "...spectrum disorder."

Support because people on the autism spectrum are autistic. That's why it's called the autism spectrum. The terms "autistic" and "on the spectrum" can be used interchangeably as they mean the same thing (aside: "on the spectrum" should be used less often as it is cumbersome). The DSM-5 does not recognize "classic" autism and ASD as separate diagnoses. Wikipedia should reflect the most current style guides and not use the language of outdated references, even if the content of the references is otherwise accurate. Muffinator (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Autism spectrum disorder" is not the same as autism. Thus saying "autistic person" is not the same as saying "person with ASD" Discussion also here [3] and [4] The DSM5 using the term "autism spectrum disorder" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Calling a person autistic does not preclude the possibility of ASD, nor specify "classic" autism. People with Asperger syndrome are also autistic. Muffinator (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that statement and that is not how I use the term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Person first language is standard in cases of medical and psychological diagnosis. Individuals who are diagnosed with autism are people first. They are people separate of any diagnosed condition. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    Incorrect. Autistic people are autistic first, but that is not the discussion necessary here. The question here is whether "autism" and "autism spectrum disorder" should follow the same guidelines. Muffinator (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What exactly are you asking in this RFC? In other words, what is the style guideline now re: ASD and what do you want to change it to? --Holdek (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Instances of "person/people/individual with autism spectrum disorder" should be replaced with "autistic person/people/individual" or "person/people/individual on the autism spectrum". Muffinator (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)