Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism

This article was nominated for deletion on 19/3/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

"Sometimes"?

Should this not be "Historical figures considered autistic" - this field is a new one. Fitzgerald's book on Irish historical figures is well argued but he claims they had Asperger's Syndrome. I appreciate there is a range of grey areas between autism and asperger's; most of us consider that autistic people cannot function without help, but that aspergic people can do so, and sometimes do very well in their field. Some experts include aspergers within autism but that is not the general understanding.86.43.179.156 (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Fitzgerald is a cottage industry, and that he considers them autistic doesn't mean they have broad acceptance in the medical community-- hence, sometimes, and there is no proof. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks and Glen Elliot

Oliver Sacks provides no discussion why he thinks evidence is thin.

Glen Elliot rules out Einstein as having AS due to a sense of humor. He offers no evidence. Original research and no non=expert opinion violate wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensabah6 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a statement that Glen Elliot ruling out autism based on humor is not acceptable clinical practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensabah6 (talk •

"Elliott adds that Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome."

Heather Kuzmich has a good sense of humor, smiles and laughs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_I22HqkQeo&feature=related

Another smiling laughing Asperger. http://www.youtube.com/user/javajunkie80#p/a/u/1/YDRFLro7s9g

yet another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3hjyK5o7yc

Glen Elliot doesn't know what he is talking about so why is he being quoted? What evidence is there that humor is vitually unknown? A guy who promotes myths about asperger violates wiki's NPOV.

contribs) 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Oliver Sacks is a reliable source for his opinions, and you are adding or proposing text that is not based on reliable sources and is (your own) original research. NPOV is certainly not violated here-- there are specific arguments for and against, presented equally. Also, please sign your edits with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) and place new threads at the bottom of the page-- see WP:TALK-- and be aware that WP:3RR applies to all edits made by the same user, whether logged in or out. Also, could you please explain why you consider Fitzgerald reliable, and Sacks or Elliott not, for expressing their own opinions? Fitzgerald's opinions are no more or less reliable than Sacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oliver sacks might be a reliable source for his own opinions but Who is Oliver Sacks? What's the relevance in including someone who is not an ASD expert? When I click on the paper I get this

http://www.neurological.org.nz/html/article.php?documentCode=26

404 File Not Found! The requested file was not found on the server.

Please check that you have entered the URL correctly and try again. If you believe that there has been an error please send an email containing the requested URL to root@gravitate.co.nz.

The paper offers no reason why the evidence is thin and was written in 2001. The criteria he and Elliot describes in Cavendish would rule out HEather Kuzmich and other real life AS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.243.35 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Glen Elliot claims ""Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome."[41]"

DSM-5 has proposed severity

• [1]

Recommendations for severity criteria for this disorder are forthcoming. We encourage you to check our Web site regularly for updates.

1. [2]
2. Because autism is defined by a common set of behaviors, it is best represented as a single diagnostic category that is adapted to the individual’s clinical presentation by inclusion of clinical specifiers (e.g., severity, verbal abilities and others) and associated features (e.g., known genetic disorders, epilepsy, intellectual disability and others.) A single spectrum disorder is a better reflection of the state of knowledge about pathology and clinical presentation; previously, the criteria were equivalent to trying to “cleave meatloaf at the joints”.

This is not original research.

Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder and must be present from infancy or early childhood, but may not be detected until later because of minimal social demands and support from parents or caregivers in early years.

Readers should know that Glen ELliot and Sacks may not be using most up to date research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.243.35 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE sign your entries by adding four tildes after your posts ( ~~~~ ). DSMV is not enacted yet, and yes, it is WP:SYN and WP:OR to draw your own conclusions about what reliable sources say, when the sources you provide do not support the text proposed or added. Sacks is a neurologist; his opinions are a reliable source for the purposes of this particular article. Once again, please explain why you consider Fitzgerald's opinions reliable, and others not. Also, please read WP:NPOV and provide a policy-based rationale for the tags you added, with no explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read sacks article? It was written 2001, and a neurologist can be completely unqualified to discuss ASD. It is currently unavailable. What specific evidence does Sacks offer to show evidence is thin at best? As for Elliot, what specific evidence is there that humor is a trait "virtually unknown" in "Asperger"? I've provided plenty of counter-evidence.

[3]

"False, absolutely.

I have a wicked sense of humour, if I do say so myself. Obscure and off-beat at times, yes, and very dry, but that's just the way we like it. Wink _________________"

Asperger's: My life as an Earthbound alien - CNN.com Recently, at 48 years of age, I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. For most of my life ... A misconception is that Aspies do not have a sense of humor. [www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/.../index.html -]

Humor: Aspergers syndrome - by Jimmy Hinkley - Helium The Humorous Side of Aspergers Syndrome Brent is a very thoughtful little boy with bright eyes and a big smile that lights up any room.

Natural Variation - Autism Blog: Severe Asperger's? Quick Note ... Sep 15, 2007 ... While there is not a lot of research on the matter, the claim that humor is not seen in people with "Severe Asperger's" is clearly wrong. [4]

Humor in Autism and Asperger Syndrome by V Lyons - 2004 - Cited by 21 - Related articles

KEY WORDS: Autism; Asperger syndrome; humor; psychological theory; ..... els for autism and Asperger syndrome. Humor and Linguistic, Pragmatic and Theory of Research has shown that individuals with autism and Asperger syndrome are impaired in humor appreciation, although anecdotal and parental reports provide some evidence to the contrary. This paper reviews the cognitive and affective processes involved in humor and recent neurological findings. It examines humor expression and understanding in autism and Asperger syndrome in the context of the main psychological theories (Theory of Mind, Executive Functions, Weak Central Coherence and Laterization models) and associated neural substrates. In the concluding sections, examples of humor displayed by individuals with autism/Asperger syndrome which appear to challenge the above theories are analyzed and areas for further research are suggested. Ensabah6 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

First, you still haven't answered my question about Fitzgerald. Second, it's not up to us, in an article of this nature (which is entirely speculative), to question a reliable source. Third, wrongplanet.com is FAR from a reliable source, yet you're offering up blogs, Youtube, primary sources and anecdote as opposed to a neurologist's opinion. Fourth, BOTH sides of the issue are presented equally, and you still haven't justified the POV tag, based on policy. Please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fitzgerald offers specific biographic information to back up his claims. [5] "Michael Fitzgerald is Henry Marsh Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin. He was the first Profesor Of Child Psychiartry in Ireland. A Clinical and Research Consultant to the Irish Society for Autism and an Honorary member of the Northern Ireland Institute of Human Relations, he has a doctorate in the area of autism and has been a researcher in this area since 1973. He trained at St. Patrick’s Hospital Dublin, Chicago Medical School, and The Maudsley Hospital and the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London. he has clinically diagnosed over 1900 individuals with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and has served on the Government Task Force on Autism and the Family. He has contributed to National and International Journals on autism and is the author of over 120 publications. He has written or co written 16 books.

"He is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Journal, Journal of the Irish Psychiatric Association, and the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. He is a past chairman of the Child Psychiatry Section and Psychotherapy Section of the Irish Division Royal College of Psychiatrists and of the Association of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry Irish Branch. He has been a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London Psychotherapy Section, Psychotherapy Training (PTSAC) Committee, Learning Disability Executive and Child Psychiatry Executive of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He was also a founding member of the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP) in Holland. He was involved in the early stages with the development of the European Federation of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy.He has worked in the field of autism since 1973."

What are Sacks and Elliot's qualifications in the field of autism?

What makes Sacks and Elliot a reliable source when the claims they allege contradict estblished fact. In Sacks paper what specific biographical evidence does Sacks and Elliot offer that would show they do NOT have AS?

Elliot and Sacks make claims about AS. I've provided evidence these claims are materially false. Can you provide me respected papers or respected ASD researchers that show that having a sense of humor is a disqualify for an AS diagnosis as Sacks and Elliot have done? Ensabah6 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the publisher that is important, more than the author - but Oliver Sacks is certainly a reliable source. The tags are inappropriate, and this looks very much like someone not liking the information rather than the source being unreliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments - youtube is not a reliable source since it is self-published. If it is a youtube video of a notable expert, it can be attributed, like Sacks and Elliot. Nothing has been proven, and even if it has, it is original research to make this point ourselves. We need reliable, secondary sources to make points, not our own opinion. Fitzgerald seems to be the big speculator here, he is published in what appears to be reliable sources, the skepticism by Elliot & Sacks is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the article quite complies with POV-- we are obliged to report Fitzgerald's claims, because they are from a reliable source, in spite of this statement from a world-class autism expert:

Speculation about their diagnoses is based on reported behaviors rather than any clinical observation of the individual. Fred Volkmar, a psychiatrist and autism expert and director of the Yale Child Study Center says, "There is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's."

To whom might he be referring? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my tuppence worth to this little discussion, apologies if I repeat what someone else has already pointed out...Glen Elliot's quote states that "Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome." yet I find no mention elsewhere that anyone has suggested that Einstein's Asperger is "severe". If severe enough, there are many things (like a social life, any level of useful output of the kind that Einstein has given to the world) that are virtually unknown to exist in those with Asperger of that severity...so I agree 100%, Einstein does NOT seem like the kind of person you could have described as suffering from severe Asperger's Syndrome...now, how about common basic Asperger Syndrome or perhaps mild Asperger Syndrome? Additionally, although other aspies have mentioned their own humour, *I* would also like to mention that I have mild Asperger Syndrome and a sense of humour, when does Glen Elliot come to visit me to prove I can't exist? (See? Humour! Hey, I didn't say it was a FUNNY sense of humour!) 87.194.86.204 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I think the article should go more in depth the evidence for and against each figure being autistic. Just say they are "speculated" and who did the speculation without saying why the speculation arose doesn't really say much.

Some more overview of the major voices in the debate would probably be a good idea too. (e.g. How credible is Oliver Sacks or Glen Elliot?)--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources (after you've read the sources there); see WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I understand your comment. I'm not saying that they aren't reliable sources; All I'm saying is that their accreditation as credible sources (and those of other experts heavily cited in the article) should probably be addressed somewhere in the article. Right now it's just a bunch of names.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

POV check

This article seems vary cautious of giving credence to any beliefs that any historical figure is autistic. It has a lot of the Manual of Style's Words to Watch. I've corrected some of it. Look at a version since before I edited any it is even more apparent. And since this article is naturally predisposed to weasel words and both founded and unfounded speculation, neutrality should be watched especially carefully.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing reliably sourced text from the article, and if you want to argue POV, please provide reliable sources for what info is missing or not given due weight. You have systematically removed reliably sourced text and replaced it with anecdote and speculation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic → Historical figures who may have been autistic — "Sometimes considered" frames it as a fringe belief; this is more neutral wording. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• No. Discussed in archives, that article name is blatantly POV, and the editor who requested it hasn't read sources and is filling the article with original research at this moment. There is no reliable consensus that most of those people were autistic, but the editor who requested the name change has removed most of the reliably sourced text from the article, added unsourced speculation, damaged the article formatting, is creating OR and POV, and I'm uninclined to repair the article just yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• What exactly am I supposed to have removed? The Sacks/Elliott criticism of Newton and Einstein is still there. I just removed the heading because the section was too short to deserve one under the Manual of Style. So please, tell me what specifically I have done that you find objectionable.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• And I have already requested a POV check so don't start an edit war.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• You've removed reliably sourced text; introduced unsourced anecdote, speculation and POV; provided no sources whatsoever for your additions or complaints about the article; and pretty much wiped out the article in terms of compliance with MOS, formatting, etc. Try to have a look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS-- text in Wiki articles must be neutral and reflect reliable sources-- you've provided none for the text you've written, which is purely opinion, while removing sourced text. Your proposed article name reflects the POV you've introduced into the article, and is not based on medical consensus nor is it neutral; one researcher (Fitzgerald) has promoted the "cottage industry" of considering these figures autistic, with no other sources backing these posthumous diagnoses.

  Here's the fully sourced version of the article before these changes, and here's just one of many reliable sources you don't seem to have read. You've also introduced a number of incorrect terms and links, and other MOS inconsistencies. What was the reason for removing the formatted table? The page is basically a list, and lists are usually formatted.

  I presume you know that Volkmar is the head of the Yale Child Study Center, and one of the world's leading authorities on autism? I don't believe the same can be said about Fitzgerald. Yet you've removed Volkmar and left us with an article based on Fitzgerald's posthumous speculations, unsupported by his peers.

  Since your additions and changes are not based on reliable sources, you will need to gain consensus for these changes. The new article is also pretty much unintelligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't feel this article advocates Mr. Fitzgerald's views, just acknowledges and addresses them, but I suppose we'll just have to wait for other editors to weigh in. This is an encyclopedia article, so I should not have to dig through the sources for relevant information. I you wish to provide an overview of another researcher's (perhaps Mr. Volkmar) arguments and the empirical facts that may support them, I encourage you to do so. But poisoning the well by suggesting that anyone who says a historical figure could have been (not was, but could have been) autistic is only doing it to make money in a "cottage industry" is not neutral, encyclopedic or helpful. It's abusive ad hominen --May Cause Dizziness (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• It seems you're misunderstanding WP:NPOV; we create balance by reporting what reliable sources say, and giving them due weight, according to the reliability of the sources. One of the world's leading autism experts made that statement, and removing it creates POV in favor of the "cottage industry" of posthumous diagnoses. Volkmar was reliably sourced in the article; you removed it. The difficulties in posthumous diagnoses are well established by reliable sources; a cottage industry making money off of them is what you've deleted from the article, introducing POV in favor of that very cottage industry. Along with the rest of the anecdote, original research, and formatting issues in this version of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• What qualifies Fred Volkmar as "one of the world's leading autism experts"? I've honestly never heard of him and he doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so I am asking sincerely.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'll write his article sometime when I have a free moment; in the meantime you might do some research on your own. If you've never heard of him, that would explain some of the issues you've introduced into this article. Have you actually read any of the sources you removed or minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not on trial here. If Fred Volkmar really is "one of the world's leading autism experts" shouldn't he already have an article. Seriously, what has he done that makes him so special? Don't insult me, don't change the subject, in 100 words or less: What has Fred Volkmar done to make him "one of the world's leading autism experts" besides agreeing with you? --May Cause Dizziness (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not having an article on Wiki just means nothing more than Eubulides or me didn't get around to writing it. If you don't know who he is, the research is at your fingertips. Let's put the alternate question to you for now, since you have now created an article based almost exclusively around Fitzgerald's speculation with original research, anecdote, and no balance. What makes Fitzgerald so important that his speculative posthumous opinions (off of which he has made a great deal of money via book sales) outweigh the consensus of other top researchers, like, say Jankovic and Volkmar? Does Jankovic have an article at Wiki? No. And Michael Fitzgerald (physician) looks red to me, so that logic doesn't work.

  No, you're not on trial, but you are the one who is removing sourced text from Volkmar, and elevating text sourced to Fitzgerald, creating POV. Since you're the one doing that, you do need to justify it. I would suggest that before you delete text attributed to Volkmar, you should know who he is. Wiki presents all credible mainstream reliably sourced views, and in this case, Volkmar's is reflects mainstream. You also placed POV tags on this article, while supplying as of yet not a single source or explanation based on a source, and then set about creating a POV article, so you will need to supply sources for your text and whatever text is missing, and restore deleted text unless you can justify the deletions based on policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• You can't just say Volkmar reflects the mainstream view without providing any evidence to that effect. Just answer the question: What has Fred Volkmar done to earn being called "one of the world's leading autism experts" and what makes him such a better authority on the subject than anyone else? Stop changing the subject. Stop attacking me. Stop attacking Michael Fitzgerald. Just. Answer. The. Question.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Um, MayCause, you just created Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist) by directly copying text from here, without attribution, so we now have two articles that say the same thing, and one of them incorrectly created, which violates Wiki's licensing. We don't need two articles that say the same thing, and we now have two big messes to clean up. I can't see any way to correct all the mistakes in this article without a full revert, and you'll need to ask an admin how to handle the incorrect copy-paste you just did to Fitzgerald. I request that you slow down a bit, because you are not editing correctly, and both of these will need to be cleaned up. An administrator is needed to fix this now; see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• And this is incorrect tagging; the text is cited, no weasle. Could you please slow down? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Now we have an incorrect redirect for an inaccurate name at Historical figures who may have been autistic; May Cause, again, please slow down until other editors can help guide your editing here and determine consensus for how to move forward; your editing is becoming disruptive. You also just deleted an entire chunk of the article, part of which belongs here.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Because these are historical figures, we'll never know whether they were autistic. It is not up to editors to determine who in history may have been autistic, so the proper subject here is those who have been considered autistic in notable and reliable sources. The bar (in terms of what sources of such speculation will be included) should be set fairly high to avoid inclusion of idle speculation. -- Scray (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert

This is the last good version, before the article deteriorated, to revert to. I can't see how to repair what's here now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could start by coherently listing what specifically you find objectionable in the changes I made, instead of making sweeping generalizations and assuming bad faith.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

For example, you claim that stating autism was official recognized is the 1940s is "original research." I really don't see how is disputable.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support reverting to that version. Context for the article is clearer from the start, and the list is easier to parse as a table with paired references in the right-hand column. I have nothing vested in either version having never visited this page before, but I find the earlier version easier to read and better-referenced. Certainly, both need some work, but starting from a sound foundation is preferred. -- Scray (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred Volkmar

• NPR "In the early 1990s, Volkmar led the team that helped develop the definition of autism used by the American Psychiatric Assoc."
• Yale Child Study Center
• Yale Bio
• Illinois bio

There's much more, including his numerous medical textbooks (not speculative paperbacks) that can be found on amazon.com, and journal papers and reviews that can be found at PubMed, but that should be enough to establish the basics of who he is, and why the NYTimes might quote him ("Dr. Volkmar agreed that the diagnosis of Asperger's was often applied too widely. There is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's, he said." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Great sources. How about you write that article for him now?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, you really don't seem to understand the concept of poisoning the well. It doesn't matter who said it; a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)