Talk:Autism spectrum

Proposal to move this article to Autistic disorder

and begin the lead with

Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, sometimes, autism)...

and make Autism a disambiguation page along these lines. Please familiarise yourself with the thread immediately above before commenting. Anthony (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I made some recent edits for clarity on your sandbox. Also, what if the lead said:

Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, more commonly, autism)...

ATC ^{. Talk} 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Anthony (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, I prefer "include in" to "encompass into". But I like the other suggestions. Anthony (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Sorry, I just thought of one more thing. I've taken it to the disambiguation page sandbox.

Regarding

Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, more commonly, autism)...

I don't know if "autism" is used in the literature to denote this syndrome more often than "autistic disorder" and "early infantile autism" are. I don't even know for sure that it is used more often in everyday parlance. So for now it may be more prudent to just say it is "sometimes" called "autism", without specifying or implying frequency. Anthony (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Above, SandyGeorgia implies she doesn't know of any autism experts presently editing. If that is the case, I'd like to approach some experts for their opinions. Can anyone suggest a name or two? I'm thinking Simon Baron-Cohen, Temple Grandin, some major contributors to DSM V's "neurodevelopmental disorders" category, James Russell. Anthony (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'd be more inclined not to approach those particular individuals, who don't necessarily have any knowledge of Wiki conventions (and I wouldn't pay attention to Baron-Cohen's opinion in any case, and Grandin isn't a physician). I'm neutral so far on the proposed move, pending more feedback from Wiki editors. You might ping Colin (talk · contribs) and MastCell (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Purely non-expert opinion: favor current title as the more popularly recognized terminology (subsequently elaborated upon by Colin below). JNW (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Agreed, Temple Grandin was a mistake. The rest, I'd welcome with open arms, provided they know how to behave and how to edit. And right again, it's not their opinions I want, I want to be pointed to a WP:MEDRS that illuminates this question (what is the clearest, most unambiguous name for this syndrome, autistic disorder or autism?). Anthony (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Colin is very good at that sort of thing, but I know he's busy IRL for a few days ... it may take a while to get his feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The main guidelines on this matter are Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The Disambiguation guideline encourages us to think about whether we have a Primary Topic for the term "autism". Autism is not like depression in that with that term there are several uses for the word that are really quite distinct. The Article title guideline encourages us to use the common name and MEDMOS prefers the medically correct name. We don't have any conflict here because "autism" is a medical term rather than a lay term. The issues with the proposed changes are:

• Autism can't become a dab page. There are 3,276 pages that link to autism and, well, essentially none that link to autistic disorder. This is a clue that the former comes naturally and the latter does not. Since editors are strongly discouraged from linking to dab pages, that's around three thousand articles that need fixed up, and it requires editors to then forever use a piped link whenever they want to link the word "autism". That just isn't going to happen. So at most, autism could become a redirect to autistic disorder and a new autism (disambiguation) page linked via a hatnote on the latter.

Addressed below. Anthony (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is "autistic disorder" more precise than "autism", and even if so, have the world's writers and the worlds experts become convinced to use the former? The above "what links here" test shows that Wikipedian's don't find "autistic disorder" to be a natural term. I'll resist the Google search test as I'm a long-standing campaigner against using Google results to mean anything (in summary: Google's mission is to find you the one page you are looking for, or perhaps a handful; Google's mission is not to give an accurate measure of the number of times a word is used in English writing by reliable sources). Let's search PubMed instead. To avoid PubMed being "helpful" with keyword synonyms, I'll search for ' "autism"[ti] ' which finds whenever that exact word appears in an article title. Let's also restrict it to the last year to keep things up-to-date. My search finds 1,153 articles. Doing the same for ' autistic disorder[ti] ' finds 19 articles. I accept some of the former articles are discussing "autism spectrum disorders" (singular and plural forms of which produce 432 articles) and also may well be using the word "autism" for the looser meaning of all ASDs. Reading the abstract of a few of the 19 articles shows those authors are quite happy to use the word "autism" as a synonym for "autistic disorder". So, regardless of the merits of "autistic disorder", the worlds medical writers are just not using the term (yet). Where medical writers feel their use of the word "autism" is non-standard or just needs clarification, then they do so (as noted in the section above). We likewise make it clear that this article is about one disorder rather than the whole spectrum.

Yes, "autistic disorder" is a more precise term than "autism". I've looked at the first 20 PubMed [title] results for "autism" that I could access (I couldn't access four articles) ignoring those with "spectrum" in the title, and 14 discuss ASD, three discuss AD, one discusses social withdrawal, one HFA. and one does not define its use (the article was not about autism per se).

PubMed results for [title] "autism" but not "spectrum"

PMID 20699105 ASD
PMID 20880122 ASD
PMID 20954799 AD
PMID 20655060 ASD
PMID 20176116 ASD
PMID 21055719 ASD
PMID 20950788 ASD
PMID 20433873 Social withdrawal
PMID 21072692 AD
PMID 21069446 ASD
PMID 20833154 AD
PMID 21061054 HFA
PMID 21062623 ASD
PMID 21055864 ASD
PMID 21048139 ASD
PMID 21055902 Not defined
PMID 20889652 ASD
PMID 20634369 ASD
PMID 21041596 ASD
PMID 20805019 ASD

In the scholarly literature the word "autism" may be used to mean any, some or all of AD, ASD, PDD-NOS and CDD, but it is almost always made clear (usually in the abstract but occasionally in the body of the article) precisely which is being referred to. Anthony (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• What do our reader's search for? There is no simple way to find out but the Wikipedia traffic statistics (imperfect as they are) give 304,809 hits for October 2010 for "autism" and 762 hits for "autistic disorder".

"Autism" is the term they're searching for but a more pressing question is which of it's possible meanings are they looking for? From the above PubMed results, it seems they're likely looking for ASD. Anthony (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Should we have a dab page at all? The example dab page links to three articles and one sandbox page. The Autism article's lead and Classification section make it clear where autism/AD fits within the other two topics. I think we can do it better in article text than in an dab (which, for example, isn't allowed to cite sources).

We don't need a dab page if the community will trust me to go through the pages that link here. piping them, where necessary, off to the Wikipedia article about the "autism" referred to in the source. Perhaps you could consider this conversation an examination/interview to determine my competency for the task. Anthony (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think we do need an Autism disambiguation page, like this. Anthony (talk)

• Should we have a Autism (symptom) page (which appears on the example dab)? I'd argue quite strongly we should not. It isn't a symptom. Autism is a disorder that itself has symptoms (characteristics). The "trait" alternative isn't good either as this isn't an aspect of someone's character. Possibly, "autistic" is what you are looking for, but we don't generally have articles on adjectives in Wikipedia.

I'm not sure which definition or convention you are referring to here. I use "trait" to mean "a particular feature of mind or character; a distinguishing quality; a characteristic" (OED) and was using it in contradistinction to "state". Bleuler in Dementia praecox coined "autism" to mean the symptom "withdrawal from society and reality."

Quotes from Bleuler (1911)

• P. 63 The inner life assumes pathological predominance (autism).
• P. 63 This detachment from reality, together with the relative and absolute predominance of the inner life, we term autism.
• P. 65 Particularly in the beginning of their illness, these patients quite consciously shun any contact with reality because their affects are so powerful that they must avoid everything which might arouse their emotions. The apathy toward the outer world is then a secondary one springing from a hypertrophied sensitivity.
• P. 345 The autism makes their thoughts and actions more independent. They are much more prone to carry out an idea than other people who are restrained by weighing the good and the bad arguments, by the spirit of the crowd, by greater suggestibility in respect of the thinking of the majority, and above all, by greater adaptability to their millieu as it actually is.
• P. 354 ...altered relations to reality (autism)...
• P. 460 The patient renders reality harmless by refusing to let it touch him (autism); he ignores it, isolates it, withdraws into his own thoughts. For these patients, autism has the same meaning as the walls of the monastery have for the monks, that the lonely desert has for some saints, and their studies for some scientists. In this respect, the difference between sickness and health is merely a quantitative one.
  

Eugen Bleuler; trans. Joseph Zinkin (1911/1961). Dementia praecox: or the group of schizophrenias. International Universities Press: New York. ISBN 9780899202440.

Anthony (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is so long. I don't think we need to change or rename the article or create a dab page. Colin°^Talk 18:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Colin. I want to pay it serious attention, so won't reply immediately. But yesterday I looked at the first twenty links to this page and I've pasted the details below. I wonder if you agree with me that there is a problem. I am in no way wedded to my solution - I put it forward as the best I could think of, but hope more experienced editors can think of a more elegant response.

In most cases when the term "autism" links to this article about autistic disorder, the term is referring to the ASDs, and so should be linking to Autism spectrum disorder.

What links here - first 20 articles

Blindness: "Blindness can occur in combination with such conditions as ... autism..."

The article doesn't cite a source but Hobson (2002, p. 195) says: "... we made close comparisons between nine of the blind children who met the criteria for autism and nine sighted children with autism who were of similar age and IQ … only two of the nine blind children displayed the quality of social impairment that was characteristic of the sighted but autistic children, a quality that involves the special feel one has of a lack in emotional contact." Hobson describes the autistic blind children in his study as either having or not having social impairment. Assuming whatever source the article drew on agrees with Hobson, Blindness is referring to PDD-NOS and at least one of the other ASDs, so should link to Autism spectrum disorder, not this article, which is about autistic disorder. Hobson, P. (2002) The Cradle of Thought. London: Macmillan.

Behavior: "...behavior ... can play a part in diagnosis of disorders such as autism." The statement is true for all ASDs, so should link to: ASD, not here.

Catatonia: "A version known as "catatonia-like deterioration" occurs in 12-17% of autistic young adults." The source is referring to Wing and Shah (2000) "Catatonia in autistic spectrum disorders" and so the link should be to ASD.

Consciousness: "There are, however, speechless humans ([...] severe forms of autism)..." This refers to autistic disorder and correctly links to this article.

Cognitive behavioral therapy: "...severe, chronic psychiatric disorders, such as psychotic behavior and autism." This refers to autistic disorder and correctly links to this article.

Denis Leary: "There is a huge boom in autism right now because inattentive mothers and competitive dads want an explanation for why their dumb-ass kids can't compete academically." This refers to the ASDs and should link to ASD.

Eugenics: "The possible elimination of the autism phenotype is a significant political issue in the autism rights movement, which claims autism is a form of neurodiversity." This refers to the ASDs and should link to ASD.

Epilepsy: "Epilepsy is prevalent in autism." The source is referring to the ASDs and should link to ASD. Source: "the frequent observation of epileptiform activity in patients with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD)" (P. 33)

Hugh Hefner: "...Generation Rescue, a controversial autism campaign organization supported by Jenny McCarthy." This refers to the ASDs and should link to ASD.

Intelligence quotient: "Standard intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, are often inappropriate for children with autism." The source addresses autistic disorder, so this link is correct.

Microserfs: "A gifted programmer with high-functioning autism." Should be linked to HFA.

Mental disorder: I couldn't find a link to this page from there.

Milk: "In the early 1990s it was hypothesized that casomorphin can cause or aggravate autism..." The source is "Elimination diets in autism spectrum disorders: any wheat amidst the chaff?" so this should link to ASD.

Omega-3 fatty acid: "Although not supported by current scientific evidence as a primary treatment for ADHD, autism, and other developmental differences, omega-3 fatty acids have gained popularity..." The source is "Novel treatments for autistic spectrum disorders." and this should link to ASD.

Pittsburgh Steelers: "...the Allegheny Valley School in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, which cares for over 900 people with mental retardation and physical disabilities, including Cope's autistic son." Refers to autistic disorder; correct link.

Proteasome: "Impaired proteasomal activity may underlie cognitive disorders such as autism..." The source refers to the ASDs and should link to ASD. Source: "Further evidence of the global importance of UBE3A, other ubiquitin ligases and related UPS proteins in cognitive function has come in a very recent publication identifying these proteins along with neuronal adhesion proteins as exhibiting copy number variation in a cohort of over 800 patients suffering from autism spectrum disorders."

Paul Dirac: "Both father and son had autism, to differing degrees." Refers to the ASDs and should link to ASD.

Schizophrenia: "Relations have been found between autism and schizophrenia based on duplications and deletions of chromosomes." The source refers to the ASDs and should link to ASD. Source: "...autism-spectrum conditions tend to be associated with up-regulation of pathways due to loss of function mutations in negative regulators, whereas schizophrenia is associated with reduced pathway activation. [...] These convergent lines of evidence appear most compatible with the hypothesis that autism and schizophrenia represent diametric conditions..."

Scientific misconduct: "Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease." Cites no source, but Wakefield (1998) uses "autism" and "ASD" interchangeably, and his sample included ASD, DD and autism. This should link to ASD.

Vaccine: "...controversial claims have been made that thiomersal contributes to autism..." The source author does not define his terms and cites no sources but the thimerosal-autism hypothesis applies to the ASDs and this should link to ASD.

Victor of Aveyron: "Professor Uta Frith has stated that she believes Victor displayed the signs of autism." Refers to autistic disorder, correctly linked.

• Fourteen pages discussing the ASDs incorrectly link "autism" to this article about autistic disorder.
• Four pages address autistic disorder and are correctly linked to this article.
• One referred to HFA
• I couldn't find the link on one page.

I'll get back when I've thought a little more. Thanks again for your time. Anthony (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We must be extremely careful not to reword what people say. If our sources in these articles say "autism" but you think they mean ASDs, then we cannot reword it or change the link to ASD. People, including experts, are using the word "autism" in a way I'd describe as careless, but we can't put words into their mouths. I've added a hatnote (take from the Classification section) which I hope helps. Colin°^Talk 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be careful with the above, but may well have misread or misunderstood something. If you disagree with my summary, please feel free to correct it, or tell me where I'm wrong. I have added links or quotes from sources, where sources are cited.

I've corrected my proposed disambiguation page to include only Autistic disorder and Autism spectrum disorder because fewer users of "autism" apply it to PDD (though some do [1][2][3]), and items on a disambiguation page should contain the ambiguous word; and I'm likely to never get round to writing an article about "autism" as used by Bleuler and Kanner.

I didn't understand your comment about the hatnote. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Ahhh. I see, it's on the article. That's a lot more elegant than my solution!

Would you mind having a careful look at the above list of 20 links to this page, and evaluating my assessments? In every case I went to the sources, and sometimes the sources' sources to clarify what was meant by "autism". If you think I've gotten it right above, I'd like to start going through "what links here," piping links off to ASD, etc. where appropriate. Anthony (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding, by nearly everyone who is a major contributor to the page, about autism. Autism is a very vague term, and encompasses too much to make all this debate over words worthwhile at all. In other words, all of this is pretty much meaningless. People of very high intelligence are considered "autistic" like Temple Grandin, but also people who can barely speak, or don't speak at all, because cognitively they are not capable of it. In fact, rather than trying to define autism, or trying to decide the words used to head a topic, it would be infinitely more producutive to simply tell people about the different types and how they differ. The article does this to an extent but you need much more, with less wasted mental energy on the precise meanings of words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could make it more explicit that it is about just the severe form of autism, and that the spectrum you are describing is discussed at Autism spectrum. Can you propose a change that would make that clearer to the reader? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing Autism links

Copied from User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Changing_Autism_links

Hi Anthony. I'm a bit concerned about your mass edits to change wikilinks from autism to autism spectrum. As I noted in the discussion at Talk:Autism#Ambiguity of the word autism, I don't think we can change people's words. If the source says autism then so must we. We mustn't second-guess the source and say "well, they mean this". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to have the word "autism" in an article link to autism spectrum. People will click on that link rightly thinking it goes to our article on Autism and will be confused when it goes elsewhere (see WP:EASTEREGG). For example, in MMR vaccine, Wakefields paper uses the words "autism" [4] and nine of the twelve children were classified as having autism, only one as having an autistic spectrum disorder. So I think discussion of MMR really must use the word autism, even if some people feel the issue is related to other autistic spectrum disorders too. That's just one example. So, in summary, I think it is safe to change autism to autism spectrum (or autism spectrum disorder) only if the source uses that term, and that easter-egg wikilinks are not appropriate in this case. Colin°^Talk 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Colin.

In the two threads above, "Ambiguity of the word autism" and "Proposal to move this article to Autistic disorder," I have shown that the word "autism" is used in the scholarly literature to mean either the psychiatric syndrome "autistic disorder," or any or all of the syndromes covered by the term "autism spectrum," and that it is most often used to denote "autism spectrum" (by a factor of about 4 to 1). I have also shown that in most cases where a Wikipedia article links the word "autism" to this page, which is about the syndrome "autistic disorder", it should in fact be linking to autism spectrum. The ratio of errors to accurate linking is about 4:1. I declared my intention to go through what links here, correcting the links where necessary and asked you if you would look at the 20 examples I offered above under "What links here - first 20 articles" and assess my judgment before I embarked on that task. I got no reply to that request and so began.

I completely agree with you with regard to second-guessing. If you see any instances of me guessing, please don't hesitate to point them out. But, if "autism" is indeed ambiguous, someone needs to exercise intelligent judgment when an article or source doesn't define what they mean by the term, and decide whether they are discussing the syndrome, autistic disorder, or the spectrum, and link accordingly. If "autism" is ambiguous, as I assert, simply linking "autism" to autistic disorder by default is going to result in an incorrect link in four out of every five cases.

You criticise my edits to MMR vaccine where I piped the word "autism" away from this article, which discusses autistic disorder, and to Autism spectrum. I understand this is a less clear case than the other edits. My reasoning is this: Since Wakefield's sample included both autism spectrum and "autism" (presumably, autistic disorder - one of the autism spectrum disorders), he is clearly studying and discussing the relationship between MMR vaccine, gut disorder and autism spectrum disorders.

I believe I have made a good case in the threads above for the ambiguity of the term "autism" and for the frequent mis-linking of the word in Wikipedia articles, and would appreciate a comment from you on both of those points. If I am right, some work needs to be done. If I am wrong, please correct me. I have undertaken the onerous task of working through the thousands of Wikilinks to this page, to assess and correct where necessary. I haven't asked for help in that task, though it would be welcome, but have asked you (or if you're too busy I throw it to any competent reader) to critically and rationally assess my judgment in the above 20 examples.

To summarise, your comment would be appreciated on

• whether "autism" is ambiguous
• whether many Wikipedia articles link "autism" mistakenly to this article about autistic disorder, when they in fact discuss autism spectrum
• my judgement on the 20 consecutive "what links here" articles above

Anthony (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "autism" has become ambiguous due to imprecise usage but if you asked anyone (expert or lay) what the word means, they'd give the meaning used by the article here (autistic disorder). For that reason, Wikipedia's page on "autism" should be as it is. We discussed several ways of handling the ambiguity and there's no perfect solution. I thought you were happy with the hatnote on the article pointing out the alternative meanings.

I think articles containing the word "autism" must link to autism and articles saying "autism spectrum" link to autism spectrum.

If the source refers to "autism spectrum" then the article should refer to "autism spectrum"; similarly for "autism". If the source uses a mix of terms then a judgment must be made.

If the article is using the wrong word, change the article text, not just the wikilink. That way, readers and editors can discuss whether the source and text agree or not. Is the change appropriate or employing too much original research (second guessing)? It also eliminates the imprecise usage.

One could make a case for pervasive developmental disorder wrt Wakefield's paper because that what the title says, though few people will know what that term means.

I'll try to find time to investigate your examples later. Colin°^Talk 08:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would appreciate it if you could look at the first 20 results of the Google Scholar search for the phrase "the term autism" (under #Ambiguity of the word autism, Quotes & sources), where most define "autism" as meaning ASD or PDD; and the first 20 articles that link here, most of which are referring unequivocally (unlike MMR vaccine) to ASD. My hope is, once you've done that, you may change your view that experts and laity habitually use "autism" to mean autistic disorder. I take your point that, rather than pipe "autism" to Autism spectrum where an article is addressing ASD, I should change the term from "autism" to "autism spectrum disorder."

I'm sorry, I am wavering between the hatnote and a disambiguation page but won't be arguing the point now, if ever. Anthony (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that as long as their is clarity, it is much easier to understand. BTW, most people who search "autism" will be referring to the severe form on the spectrum. So now I think it's good as it is, plus it got a "Featured article" nomination and retrieved the grade with the article calling the delay: "autism"; this is not a scientific journal but an encyclopedia that people can read - without going into too much detail within the lead. Also, "autism" is NOT a "psychiatric" syndrome, but rather a profound development delay. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarity is what we are all striving for here. It is the motivation behind my starting these threads.

Most people who search "autism" are likely not referring to the severe form. Most journal articles and Wikipedia articles that use the term are referring to Autism spectrum (See Quotes and sources and What links here - first 20 articles above).

Autistic disorder is unequivocally a psychiatric syndrome. This article is about a psychiatric syndrome, as is Asperger's syndrome.

"Autism" is an ambiguous word, which usually refers to the ASDs, sometimes the ASDs and childhood disintegrative disorder, sometimes autistic disorder, and sometimes simply "withdrawal from others" or "withdrawal from reality." Anthony (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right about that, in regards to the scientific journals, but the average person searching "autism" will NOT be referring to Asperger's syndrome, PDD-NOS, Rett's syndrome, High-functioning autism nor CDD; unless they type in "different types of autism", then they may be referring to all of the "spectrum disorders". Also, everything is going to be changed in 2013. Because diagnosticians debate over the difference over PDD-NOS, clinicians realized that their "is a spectrum of a variety of severities and milder cases". They are referring to all the disorders (CDD, Autistic disorder, Asperger's syndrome, PDD-NOS) underneath the single diagnosis of: "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (ranging from mild to severe). Rett's syndrome is going to be permanently removed from the "autistic" lable, as did Fragile X Syndrome in the '90s. To find out more about the change, please see here: [5] and here: [6]. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I haven't forgotten to review the 20 links about, just haven't got round to it. I agree with ATC that most people searching for "Autism" are looking for the "most severe form" rather than, say, Asperger's. Indeed, this makes me even more nervous about "second guessing" what other articles are referring to by their wikilinks. Colin°^Talk 10:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I really do know how it is, Colin. Whenever you feel like it is fine with me. But if you ever decide you can't be bothered (as I frequently do), let me know and I'll find someone you approve of to review them. I'd prefer you to do it, though, and don't mind waiting months.

By the way, thank you for that excellent response in the thread below. Anthony (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The two of you have convinced me. Journal articles discussing autism spectrum disorders, frequently abbreviate it to "autism", but people referring to the conditions use the individual nouns "Aspergers", "HFA", "PDDNOS", etc., and reserve "autism" for autistic disorder. (Judging by ATC's second link above, people with Asperger's aren't too thrilled about having their condition characterised as autism.) Sorry it took so long for me to come round; I appreciate your patience.

And thank you for those links ATC. They're very well written, clear explanations. Anthony (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I've had a chance to look at some of the links you gave above. Here's the first eight. Let me know if there are any of the rest that need looked at but I see a pattern emerging in my responses:

• Blindness. PMID 12639331 Higher frequency (in congenitally blind) of both people meeting the full criteria for classic autism and people with autisic-like features. this also discusses "autistic tendencies". I don't think ASD covers it. Perhaps best just to say "autism and autistic-like features".

• Behavior. While statement is true for all ASDs, it is also true for just autism and since the sentence already contains "disorders" and autism is given as just one example of many disorders, I think it is best to pick just one disorder here.

• Catatonia. Agree it should be to ASD as that is the study-group the figures are for.

• Consciousness, Cognitive behavioral therapy. Agree it should link here.

• Denis Leary. Feel very strongly this should link to autism. This is a direct quote and we absolutely mustn't put words in people's mouths. In fact, the backlash was probably stronger because he refered to the most severe form.

• Eugenics. There's no source. I think this is best left linking here. The advocates use the term autism; so should we.

• Epilepsy. Agree it should be to ASD.

• Hugh Hefner. The campaign group uses the term autism; so should we.

Generally if the source (or the people/organisations mentioned) use the term "autism" then so should we and we should link here. If the source uses "autism spectrum disorder" or similar, then we should use the term "autism spectrum disorder" and link there. The blindness example is complex and I don't think having "autistic-like features (or tendencies)" would necessarily classify someone as having an ASD. If both terms are used by a source then it is a judgement call but I wouldn't necessarily assume ASD is a safer option. For example, the MMR controversy is about autism and that's the term everyone uses when discussing it, even if two of the patients in the original paper had an ASD rather than classic autism. If the article text is just giving autism as an example of a disorder (like with behavior) then I don't think there is any need to widen it even if widening it would be technically correct (it doesn't make it more correct). Colin°^Talk 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

69.228.117.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has twice removed the following text, "Autism affects information processing in the brain by altering how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize; how this occurs is not well understood." which is sourced to PMID 19819542. Specifically, the source says "Together, results of clinical, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and neurochemical studies show that autism spectrum disorders are disorders of neuronal-cortical organisation that cause deficits in information processing in the nervous system, ranging from synaptic and dendritic organisation to connectivity and brain structure. These changes probably alter developmental trajectory of social communication and seem to be affected by genetic and environmental factors." This review paper, from The Lancet in November 2009, is a fine source for the article text IMO. I have restored the text. Colin°^Talk 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Colin that Autism correctly reflects the Lancet article's position, that autism is a disorder of cortical neuronal organisation. It implies that this is its primary cause, which I believe is an unsupported assumption, but this assumption is shared by all the recent reviews I've read. If you, 69.228.117.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), can find a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that challenges that assumption, bring it here and we'll incorporate it. Anthony (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony- in American English, your "autism is a disorder of cortical neuronal organization" would not be a good wording. "Organisation" which I noticed you spelled with an "s" the English way, would not be the precise word to describe say a defect at the synapses, which is one of the major areas of inquiry now. Maybe in England that statement would be regarded as including synapse defects, or many other problems in the neurons of the cortex, but not so much in the US. Also, attention has been given to the amygdala in a lot of research, so I am not sure you can say cortical neurons are the only thing implicated in all review articles. Finally, I don't think Wikipedia rules require only review articles as citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a bit hubristic for researchers and theorists to call it "a disorder of x". It implies etiology, and that's not known yet, and I'd be surprised if subcortical regions aren't deeply implicated in etiology. I'm pretty sure "organisation" in neuroscience covers strength of synaptic connection. Anthony (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Vaccines

All I ask of Wikipedia is an effort in objectivity. Millions of people go here for information. I urge you to explore all sides of an argument before stating them as supposed fact. This includes the research of the source itself (not just the content), who they are funded by and who they are connected to. There are numerous dissenting studies and opinions within the scientific community in regards to the relationship between autism and vaccinations. All I ask is that you acknowledge these sources instead of quoting the first pharmaceutical company backed study that you find. The CDC is no different, it is a tremendously flawed source with endless contradictions in it's presentation of "facts." I would be glad to enlighten you but I fear any truth that contradicts the establishment will seldom see the light of day. Contact me if you wish I would gladly start you in the right direction. You can email me at [email removed]. Although, it will take some time compiling the information into cohesive form. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.107.160 (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All sourced information confirms that vaccines are not related to Autism. All studies that state otherwise have been proven unreliable. Besides, such information that you are proposing is already covered for in other articles. Aspie Lover (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Although the science community has pretty much universally rejected vaccines as a cause of the majority of cases of autism, it's not accurate to say there is no link. The US' vaccine court decided one child got autism from vaccines, and there may be many more, I was at a DAN conference in Long Beach CA recently where a researcher on mitochondrial DNA from UC San Diego stated that a much larger percentage of autistics than normal kids have mDNA problems, (believed to be the reason the kid got sick from vaccine) and that it's not known, and implicitly can not be assumed, that an absence of general mitochondrial disease, (hard to diagnose but kids will NOT appear physically healthy as most autistics do) in the body in general, means absense of all mDNA problems in particular organs, ie, the brain in this case. In other words, there may be some number, perhaps small, perhaps not all that small, of kids whose autism is due to mitochondrial disease. According to this lecture, there is often significant neurological deterioration after a fever, or, in the case of some, vaccines. So, what I am trying to say is, "no link between vaccines and autism" is a bit simplistic. Also, just my own theory, but if an immune activating event can cause damage to the brain in those kids with unknown mitochondrial disease, then it may be they get autism after vaccines, but, at the same time, the percentage of kids with autism who have been vaccinated is the same as those who were not, because even if you are not vaccinated, sooner or later you get fever and that leads to the brain problems. THat last part is just my theory, but I think it should be pointed out vaccines do not seem to cause much autism but claiming it causes none is an oversimplication. Better to say something that states the current state of belief but emphasizes vaccines extremely low risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:OR Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The vaccine court did not decide one child got autism from vaccines. The child did not have autism. That was why the case was settled, rather than tried as part of the omnibus. Vaccines were responsible for the child's rare complication, but it wasn't related to autism. If the lawyers could have proved the child had autism, they would never had settled, since they could have won a large class-action lawsuit by proving there was a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Autism Statistics

The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM) are charged with monitoring and producing statistics related to autism and ASD. These statistics are then used by the CDC 1 and the National Institutes of Health U.S., National Library of Medicine 2 and reporting science journals. Their full set of statistics should be restored to the article.

"In 2006, on average, approximately 1% or one child in every 110 in the 11 ADDM sites was classified as having an ASD (approximate range: 1:80--1:240 children [males: 1:70; females: 1:315])."

Statistics from Asia and Europe (worldwide) indicate 1% prevalence (with data table).

"Studies in Asia, Europe and North America have identified individuals with an ASD with an approximate prevalence of 0.6% to over 1%."3

75.120.185.48 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about one of the ASDs - autistic disorder. The info you cite may be appropriate at Autism spectrum, if it is not already covered there and the source conforms to WP:MEDRS. Anthony (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to ARI

Many people visit this link, I think it would be noteworthy to mention if any significant body has done some work in trying to overcome this disorder. I would like to add links to ARI (Autism Research Institute) a wiki page already exists this a link to it should be fine? 71.231.182.103 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that it would be appropriate to highlight one specific organization or research body out of the many hundreds which exist — and particularly one which espouses the use of discredited and disproven theories of disease and therapies more likely to harm than help children. While this article doesn't separate ongoing research out under its own heading, a cursory examination of the article suggests that research into both causes and therapies is quite broadly discussed. Prominent links are already provided the articles Autism therapies and Causes of autism, which go into quite a bit more detail regarding both our current understanding and our research in progress. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Infantile behaviors

Can anyone verify that this text added here is in the cited source? PMID 10638459. If not, it should be removed as anecdote or cited to a review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The new content is not mentioned under "screening" in the source, so I have reverted. Our text:

• No babbling by 12 months.
• No gesturing (pointing, waving goodbye, etc.) by 12 months.
• No single words by 16 months.
• No two-word spontaneous phrases (other than instances of echolalia) by 24 months.
• Any loss of any language or social skills, at any age.

is actually a copy-paste from the source so I've enclosed it in quotation marks for now. Anthony (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was an extremely close paraphrase. I'm not sure it could be thoroughly paraphrased without harming the clarity and readability, so am leaving it as a quote for now. Anthony (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield

"the vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence" from the lead has been linked to a news report of the BMJ article and editorial asserting Wakefield was likely behaving fraudulently. Is this an appropriate source for the "biologically implausible" claim? If so, should we link to a news report, the BMJ editorial or Deer's article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Deer article is peer reviewed by BMJ, so I like that one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've updated with the Gerber and Offit paper used elsewhere, which actually does support the "biologically implausible" and "unconvincing" claim. The recent Deer article and the editorial in the BMJ are dynamite, but are more concerned with "fraud" than just "unconvincing". Colin°^Talk 13:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The folks at ITN are looking for someone to update the controversy article so they can put it on the main page-- ideally, that would be someone who has access to the BMJ article, I'm just waking up and have guests today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, you should be able to read the BMJ article and editorial as it is free. Colin°^Talk 14:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Coffee. Not awake yet. Link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BMJ editorial
Deer's article
MMR vaccine controversy has already been updated. As has Andrew Wakefield. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony (I woke up to an out-of-control watchlist when I have a busy day, and don't know where to start or even if I should-- I appreciate the update). The folks at ITN don't consider that a sufficient update, they want more attention there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Inadvertent removal of thread?

Not sure whether the IP user who started a discussion of terminology meant to delete their own thread? Consequently I'm not sure whether it should be restored. Doniago (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Left a message at the IP's Talk page. Doniago (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminology [Restored Thread]

"As someone who has Autism, I would strongly urge editors of this page to consider using more Neurodiversity aware terminology. Many aspies are offended by the (sometimes insulting)terms used in Wikipedia articles on this subject. I am very concerned that Austism is in certian "mental illness" catogories, Autism may be known as a disorder in medical terms, but there is no reason to call it an illness. Surely Wikipedia contributors can edit the wording of this article in a way that is medically acurate but still respects people on the autistic spectrum? Thanks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariosto10 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine theory

There are just a couple of instances in which the autism/vaccine connection has been referred to as a theory. I checked the document briefly and saw the following.

"Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified.[69] Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[10]"

I believe it to be incidental, since the rest of the document is worded quite carefully regarding immunizations. I suggest an alteration to the document to the following.

"Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the [strike]theory[/strike] hypothesis that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a [strike]scientific[/strike] study which has since been proven to have been falsified.[69] Although these [strike]theories[/strike] hypotheses lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[10]"

This would more accurately reflect the concepts put forth. 74.204.87.18 (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)