Talk:Autism spectrum
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:
Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between vaccination and autism?
A1: This association has been researched, and is mentioned in the page - specifically with some variant of the statement "there is no convincing evidence that vaccination causes autism and an association between the two is considered biologically implausible". Despite strong feelings by parents and advocates, to the point of leaving children unvaccinated against serious, sometimes deadly diseases, there is simply no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the two. Among the organizations that have reviewed the evidence between vaccination and autism are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (United States), Institute of Medicine (United States), National Institutes of Health (United States), American Medical Association, the Cochrane Collaboration (British/international), British Medical Association (Britain), National Health Service (United Kingdom), Health Canada (Canada) and the World Health Organization (international). The scientific community took this issue seriously, investigated the hypothesis, designed and published many studies involving millions of children, and they all converged on a lack of association between autism and vaccination. Given the large number of children involved, the statistical power of these studies was such that any association, even an extremely weak one, would have been revealed. Continuing to press the issue causes unnecessary anguish for parents and places their children, and other children at risk of deadly diseases (that disproportionately harm the unvaccinated).[1][2][3] Q2: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between thiomersal, aluminum, squalene, toxins in vaccines?
A2: Thiomersal has also been investigated and no association is found between the two. Vaccines are heavily reviewed for safety beforehand, and since they are given to millions of people each year, even rare complications or problems should become readily apparent. The amount of these additives in each vaccine is minuscule, and not associated with significant side effects in the doses given. Though many parents have advocated for and claimed harm from these additives, without a plausible reason to expect harm, or demonstrated association between autism and vaccination, following these avenues wastes scarce research resources that could be better put to use investigating more promising avenues of research or determining treatments or quality-of-life improving interventions for the good of parents and children.
Specifically regarding "toxins", these substances are often unnamed and only vaguely alluded to - a practice that results in moving the goalposts. Once it is demonstrated that an ingredient is not in fact harmful, advocates will insist that their real concern is with another ingredient. This cycle perpetuates indefinitely, since the assumption is generally a priori that vaccines are harmful, and no possible level of evidence is sufficient to convince the advocate otherwise. Q3: Why doesn't this article discuss X treatment for autism?
A3: For one thing, X may be discussed in the autism therapies section. Though Wikipedia is not paper and each article can theoretically expand indefinitely, in practice articles have restrictions in length due to reader fatigue. Accordingly, the main interventions for autism are dealt with in summary style while minor or unproven interventions are left to the sub-article. Q4: My child was helped by Y; I would like to include a section discussing Y, so other parents can similarly help their children.
A4: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; despite how important or effective an intervention may seem to be, ultimately it must be verified in reliable, secondary sources that meet the guidelines for medical articles. Personal testimonials, in addition to generally being considered unreliable in scientific research, are primary sources and can only be synthesized through inappropriate original research. If the intervention is genuinely helpful for large numbers of people, it is worth discussing it with a researcher, so it can be studied, researched, published and replicated. When that happens, Wikipedia can report the results as scientific consensus indicates the intervention is ethical, effective, widely-used and widely accepted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can not be used to predict or promote promising interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. Without extensive testing, Wikipedia runs the risk of promoting theories and interventions that are either invalid (the Refrigerator mother hypothesis), disproven (secretin and facilitated communication),[4] or dangerous (chelation therapy, which resulted in the death of a child in 2005).[5] Q5: Why doesn't this article discuss Z cause of autism? Particularly since there is this study discussing it!
A5: No ultimate cause has been found for autism. All indications are that it is a primarily genetic condition with a complex etiology that has to date eluded discovery. With thousands of articles published every year on autism, it is very easy to find at least one article supporting nearly any theory. Accordingly, we must limit the page to only the most well-supported theories, as demonstrated in the most recent, reliable, high-impact factor sources as a proxy for what is most accepted within the community. Q6: Why does/doesn't the article use the disease-based/person-first terminology? It is disrespectful because it presents people-with-autism as flawed.
A6: This aspect of autism is controversial within the autistic community. Many consider autism to be a type of neurological difference rather than a deficit. Accordingly, there is no one preferred terminology. This article uses the terms found in the specific references. Q7: Why doesn't the article emphasize the savant-like abilities of autistic children in math/memory/pattern recognition/etc.? This shows that autistic children aren't just disabled.
A7: Savant syndrome is still pretty rare, and nonrepresentative of most of those on the autistic spectrum. Research has indicated that most autistic children actually have average math skills.[6] Q8: Why doesn't the article mention maternal antibody related autism or commercial products in development to test for maternal antibodies?
A8: There are no secondary independent third-party reviews compliant with Wikipedia's medical sourcing policies to indicate maternal antibodies are a proven or significant cause of autism, and commercial products in testing and development phase are unproven. See sample discussions here, and conditions under which maternal antibody-related posts to this talk page may be rolled back or otherwise reverted by any editor. References
Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Autism:
External links
|
Autism spectrum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:WP1.0
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Autism spectrum.
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Individuals with autism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the field of autism research, people are not referred at "autistic individuals", but instead "individuals with autism". This is easily verified by reading the scientific articles cited in the article. I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is true. "Individuals with autism" is terminology used by reliable sources. If you go back to the early 90's, you can find references to "autistic individuals", but person first language is used by recent reliable sources.
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23494559
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765010
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805158
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22449217
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20464465
- --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree. The main reason is that it is a form of labeling. A person with autism is more than autistic. Consider another example to see the point. A person with cancer we say "has cancer". Thus, it is appropriate to say "persons with cancer" or "persons having cancer" but not appropriate to say "cancerous persons". There are many other examples in which we appropriately use "has" or "with" but do not label people with a term. A grand parent may have dementia, but it is not appropriate to call them demented.I am One of Many (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Did you just compare a harmless neurological variant to a disease?
- In any event, this discussion is already closed. See "Autistic person" versus "person with autism" above and do not re-open it.Muffinator (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator, please read WP:ADVOCACY. Additionally, above is a weak consensus non-admin closure, my understanding is any non-involved editor can simply reopen it. We can also start another discussion.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- As the recent edits I have made improve neutral point of view rather than being at the expense of it, they cannot be considered advocacy under that definition. The current writing style on most autism-related articles is overtly negative. Muffinator (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator, do you consider it negative when autism is referred to as a diagnosed condition? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. I do not. Psychologists/psychiatrists diagnose people as autistic all the time; it's just a statement of fact. "Condition" is a bit of strange word choice, but not necessarily negative. Muffinator (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Professional don't call people autistic. From the CDC, people are diagnosed with an ASD. From the CDC, a [1] story from a person with ASD.I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. I do not. Psychologists/psychiatrists diagnose people as autistic all the time; it's just a statement of fact. "Condition" is a bit of strange word choice, but not necessarily negative. Muffinator (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator, do you consider it negative when autism is referred to as a diagnosed condition? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- As the recent edits I have made improve neutral point of view rather than being at the expense of it, they cannot be considered advocacy under that definition. The current writing style on most autism-related articles is overtly negative. Muffinator (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator, please read WP:ADVOCACY. Additionally, above is a weak consensus non-admin closure, my understanding is any non-involved editor can simply reopen it. We can also start another discussion.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree. The main reason is that it is a form of labeling. A person with autism is more than autistic. Consider another example to see the point. A person with cancer we say "has cancer". Thus, it is appropriate to say "persons with cancer" or "persons having cancer" but not appropriate to say "cancerous persons". There are many other examples in which we appropriately use "has" or "with" but do not label people with a term. A grand parent may have dementia, but it is not appropriate to call them demented.I am One of Many (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- If person-first has predominated in the literature for the last 20 years, then perhaps we should reflect that. What we need is an authoritative secondary (ideally) source that discusses this very question, rather than assertions from editors or collections of examples. Anyone know of an impartial scholarly secondary source that addresses the use of person-first language in the scholarly literature? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, the Washington Times, and the Autism Women's Network all prefer Autistic-first language.[1][2][3][4] Muffinator (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The policy that the Autism National Committee (AutCom) has recently adopted is to use both, in the spirit of inclusion. There are some "old-timers", autistic people from way back, who remember when personhood used to be much more in question than it is now (though we still have a long way to go obviously). These are nonverbal people who were institutionalized and treated like ciphers or worse... subjected to hardcore ABA with aversives.... very traumatic. They use person-first language for that reason: they view themselves as people, first and foremost, because for so long, they weren't seen as people. They're among the "elders" of our movement, who walked a harder road. These people are now a minority in community, sure. But if we don't we respect minorities, what are we? That's why I like AutCom's policy and suggest using both, definitely "autistic person" more often to reflect the obvious level of preference, but don't entirely abandon "person with autism", e.g. when it's grammatically more natural. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can't find anything on their site about using both version. They only user "people with autism" [2]. I think the only place where people are still referred to as autistic is on Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The policy that the Autism National Committee (AutCom) has recently adopted is to use both, in the spirit of inclusion. There are some "old-timers", autistic people from way back, who remember when personhood used to be much more in question than it is now (though we still have a long way to go obviously). These are nonverbal people who were institutionalized and treated like ciphers or worse... subjected to hardcore ABA with aversives.... very traumatic. They use person-first language for that reason: they view themselves as people, first and foremost, because for so long, they weren't seen as people. They're among the "elders" of our movement, who walked a harder road. These people are now a minority in community, sure. But if we don't we respect minorities, what are we? That's why I like AutCom's policy and suggest using both, definitely "autistic person" more often to reflect the obvious level of preference, but don't entirely abandon "person with autism", e.g. when it's grammatically more natural. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, the Washington Times, and the Autism Women's Network all prefer Autistic-first language.[1][2][3][4] Muffinator (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- If person-first has predominated in the literature for the last 20 years, then perhaps we should reflect that. What we need is an authoritative secondary (ideally) source that discusses this very question, rather than assertions from editors or collections of examples. Anyone know of an impartial scholarly secondary source that addresses the use of person-first language in the scholarly literature? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do understand that opinions vary on proper language. To see how reliable sources handle it, I searched PubMed for articles dated 2014 (about 6 months) with "autistic X" in the title, and for articles dated 1 June 2014 or later (about one month) with "X with autism" in the title. (I would welcome someone replicating my work.)
Lists of articles
|
---|
Autistic X dated 1 January 2014 or later
|
- I found 20 articles since January 1 using "autistic X", and 82 since June 1 using "X with autism".
- I'm not advocating we duplicate the language in the scholarly literature (which heavily favours "X with autism") if the majority of people on the spectrum who care prefer "autistic X". I wonder if there is a good, independent, unbiased, scholarly review or survey that says which language people described as autistic or having autism prefer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think we should go with reliable sources. Reading above, it appears the preference for "autistic person" is related an editor's point of view, specifically, the point of view that autism is "harmless neurological variant". This isn't supported by reliable sources. Even if we found RS regarding what high functioning individuals with autism often prefer, this would still only apply to a subset of individuals with autism spectrum disorder, considering low functioning individuals with autism cannot express such a preference, due to cognitive impairments and inability to speak. Maybe individuals significantly more impaired might oppose characterization of "harmless neurological variant" and language adopted to suggest that. Either way, "harmless neurological variant" does not represent RS and the language being suggested does not represent the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The popularity of one styling as a default is not really relevant as much as cases wherein a style is specifically selected for evidence-based reasons. Furthermore, the assertion that nonverbal individuals cannot express themselves through writing is pretty ridiculous. Most autistic people are verbal anyway, so if it's a popularity contest, the nonverbal statistic is insignificant. Muffinator (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- That wasn’t my assertion. My assertion was those with severe autism, which is not rare, [[3]] may not agree with advocacy which aims to present autism as a “harmless neurological variant” or language specifically adopted to support this, but either way, I think we should go with the reliable sources. The reliable sources do not present autism as a "harmless neurological variant" and this is for evidence based reasons. High functioning individuals with autism, who do well, do not change fact that autism is a diagnosed condition. We should use the person-first language which is standard in cases of diagnosed conditions, because according to the reliable sources, that is what autism is. Attempting to adopt language which presents autism as something other than a diagnosed condition, in contrast to the reliable sources, would seem to be a case of WP:ADVOCACY --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. The word usage should reflect how the relevant scientific and diagnostic community expresses the relationship between a person and ASD. One way around this is to introduce a new section on say "social and political issues". If there is a political issue about whether to say "autistic person" or "person with autism" it can be discussed there if there are sources to back up such a section. However, this article purports to present professional diagnostic criteria and scientific research, so word usage should follow sources.I am One of Many (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- That wasn’t my assertion. My assertion was those with severe autism, which is not rare, [[3]] may not agree with advocacy which aims to present autism as a “harmless neurological variant” or language specifically adopted to support this, but either way, I think we should go with the reliable sources. The reliable sources do not present autism as a "harmless neurological variant" and this is for evidence based reasons. High functioning individuals with autism, who do well, do not change fact that autism is a diagnosed condition. We should use the person-first language which is standard in cases of diagnosed conditions, because according to the reliable sources, that is what autism is. Attempting to adopt language which presents autism as something other than a diagnosed condition, in contrast to the reliable sources, would seem to be a case of WP:ADVOCACY --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The popularity of one styling as a default is not really relevant as much as cases wherein a style is specifically selected for evidence-based reasons. Furthermore, the assertion that nonverbal individuals cannot express themselves through writing is pretty ridiculous. Most autistic people are verbal anyway, so if it's a popularity contest, the nonverbal statistic is insignificant. Muffinator (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think we should go with reliable sources. Reading above, it appears the preference for "autistic person" is related an editor's point of view, specifically, the point of view that autism is "harmless neurological variant". This isn't supported by reliable sources. Even if we found RS regarding what high functioning individuals with autism often prefer, this would still only apply to a subset of individuals with autism spectrum disorder, considering low functioning individuals with autism cannot express such a preference, due to cognitive impairments and inability to speak. Maybe individuals significantly more impaired might oppose characterization of "harmless neurological variant" and language adopted to suggest that. Either way, "harmless neurological variant" does not represent RS and the language being suggested does not represent the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating we duplicate the language in the scholarly literature (which heavily favours "X with autism") if the majority of people on the spectrum who care prefer "autistic X". I wonder if there is a good, independent, unbiased, scholarly review or survey that says which language people described as autistic or having autism prefer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is not a harmless variant like attached earlobes. It is a psychiatric mental illness. This is why it is in the DSM. We need to follow the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The DSM also includes gender dysphoria, previously under the title of gender identity disorder. It once included homosexuality. "Inclusion in the DSM" is not a reliable source with which to assert that autism is a mental illness or that autism is harmful. Muffinator (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just because the DSM, quite a while ago, had something that is now not considered a disorder listed as one is completely irrelevant. Saying the DSM is not an RS is ridiculous. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Never said the DSM itself is not an RS, merely that one should not make assumptions about what it includes. The DSM is used for definitions and diagnostic criteria. It does not include value judgments on whether the items described in it are good or bad, therefore such judgments cannot be made based solely on the fact that something is mentioned. Muffinator (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just because the DSM, quite a while ago, had something that is now not considered a disorder listed as one is completely irrelevant. Saying the DSM is not an RS is ridiculous. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment (crossposted from ANI): Looking briefly over how the issue has developed, I just wanted to stress the "weak" part of "weak consensus" in the previous section. I suggested continued discussion in the close, and it seems to me that this has happened; more importantly, the question has attracted new, substantial arguments that were not made during the RfC. IMO this is more than enough to make the previous close obsolete. Sunrise (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support X with autism, as this is the most common usage in medical literature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll support X with autism, until a very solid scholarly source is produced that demonstrates a large proportion of people with the diagnosis prefer other language. I may still stick with the way our sources do it even then; but I will reconsider with an open mind. Per others here, Muffinator, this article addresses people with a diagnosis that places them at the profoundly socially- and cognitively-disabled end of the spectrum: a serious mental illness. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If these terms are regarded as equivalent, then I think this is a style-guide issue and one to be determined by consensus rather than citing journals. However I'm not convinced, for the purpose of this article, they are equivalent. "Autistic" as an adjective is not well defined and tends to include much of the autistic spectrum. Those editors of Wikipedia or blogs who self-identify as "autistic" and wish to be described as such represent the high-functioning or Asperger's community more than the community of individuals with a full clinical diagnosis of autism -- many of whom are unable to communicate at all or who have significant additional disabilities. We need to be very careful when were are giving facts/figures about autism that we do not mix those up with figures for ASD. As such, while I personally agree with the wish to use "autistic person", I think this really is equivalent to "person with ASD" rather than "person with autism". And this article is only about autism. -- Colin°Talk 12:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Funny, the exact opposite is being espoused over on Talk:Autism spectrum. A user is arguing that "autistic" refers to this article and precludes any other part of the spectrum. Colin, I have to ask: How do you know what kind of autism "editors of Wikipedia or blogs" have? Muffinator (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, "He has autism" describes someone who meets the criteria for the old DSM "autistic disorder" - someone at the severe end of the spectrum - but not a high-functioning person; whereas "autistic" can describe someone anywhere on the spectrum. So using the broad "autistic" in this article about the severe end of the spectrum would be imprecise. Whereas use of "autistic" when discussing the spectrum in general or high-functioning people would be OK. Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator, on the AS talk page you wrote "because people on the autism spectrum are autistic". So you yourself are insisting that the adjective applies to all individuals on the spectrum. Now, I think your confusion is you believe this article here is dealing with Autism the concept, the spectrum. Whereas it is currently dealing with only the classic disorder as strictly diagnosed. Such a diagnosis largely excludes individuals capable of functioning successfully as Wikipedians. Look at the prognosis section of this article: the vast majority of adults with autism "need considerable support and supervision in daily living" and most are in professional care. This is quite a different group of individuals to the vocal blogger with Aspergers. The truth is the language used for this topic is hopelessly confused and ambiguous. While this article remains concerned with classic autism, and cites studies on individuals with autism (so defined) then they should use exactly the same "description of population-group" as the journal/book they cite, to avoid any danger of widening or narrowing the group. While some people may use the word "autistic" to mean "with classic autism" (and some writing may use that term without ambiguity because the population group in that text has already been clearly defined) many people do not. Including, it seems, yourself. -- Colin°Talk 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Since when does needing "considerable support and supervision in daily living" mean that one cannot write and browse the internet? Autism is mostly described in terms of verbal impairment; assistive speaking devices exist for exactly that reason, along with other computers, especially iPads. Writing may be difficult but is very rarely impossible. It seems this article is need of much improvement if such misunderstandings still occur! Muffinator (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator, you are by far not the first and I don't think will be the last newbie editor to tackle the ASD articles with more zeal and passion than they have ability, understanding, and access to and acquaintance with high quality sources. This is an enormously difficult subject to write precisely about. As I noted, you are in your own writing confused as to whether "autistic person" should be used to describe only individuals with classic autism (this article) or someone on the autistic spectrum. This is sort of an own-goal wrt your attempt to revised the vocab here. It is well-meaning, and I support those who wish to use the identity-first language, and I would support that language in some contexts. But while this article remains concerned with classic autism and most of the statistics cover people with this very severe disability, we need to be precise in our language. -- Colin°Talk 20:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the language is so ambiguous, we must specify "classic autism" and "autism spectrum" in every instance, which I should note is a massive undertaking because it requires digging into the cited sources to determine which type they were talking about. In many cases you will find that the sources are just as ambiguous, because the differences are arbitrary and meaningless, but I can tell we're not going to reach consensus on that point. By the way, I was a newbie when I made my first edit in 2006, not now. Muffinator (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct, it is messy, but that is the current state of our understanding of autism; it isn't just one category of disorder, but the spectrum is not fully understood yet. The same is currently happening with many psychological disorders. It makes our job tougher on Wikipedia, but over the very long run progress will be made. I am One of Many (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Could we use, "people diagnosed with"? It's a little clunky, but it's clear and accurate while avoiding saying they are this or have that. Just looking for language that might end what could be a perennial dispute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Too clunky. This dispute is perennial because so many people come to this article expecting it to be about something that it is not. It is not an article on the whole concept of autism, but on one rather limited diagnostic group. Perhaps at some point in the future that will change. -- Colin°Talk 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not all autistic people have a diagnosis. In fact, there's a huge under-diagnosis problem especially with non-whites, women, and the poor. Muffinator (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know that, Muffinator. That's the point. Our autism suite of articles, when referring to autistic people/people with autism, invariably are referring to people with a diagnosis. That's where science and medicine get the data: from studies done on people with a diagnosis. Of course, if something is said/ could be said in an article about autistic people who have not been diagnosed, other language could be used in those instances, I suppose, but I'm not aware of anything in any of our autism articles that is not derived from scientific studies of people with a diagnosis.
- It's like in other medical articles we make a clear distinction between patients and people who might have a condition but have not yet been diagnosed. Most epidemiological studies, for instance, are conducted on people diagnosed - patients. Please reconsider this in light of what I've just clarified here. I do think it's a solution to what will otherwise be perennial conflict in this topic area. (You too, Colin. Please don't just dismiss this without giving it a bit more thought.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Signs of a diagnosed state, that have been identified by studying diagnosed people, are also present in those who meet the diagnostic criteria but have not actually been diagnosed. That's why "diagnosed as/with" can't be a default. Muffinator (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's like in other medical articles we make a clear distinction between patients and people who might have a condition but have not yet been diagnosed. Most epidemiological studies, for instance, are conducted on people diagnosed - patients. Please reconsider this in light of what I've just clarified here. I do think it's a solution to what will otherwise be perennial conflict in this topic area. (You too, Colin. Please don't just dismiss this without giving it a bit more thought.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support: I suggest not introducing new terminology. "X with autism" or "X with an ASD" is in near universal use in published research articles,the DSM, by the CDC, and The Autism National Committee. We should follow policy and not use expressions used in sources or that are not commonly used.I am One of Many (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Support- "Individual with autism" or "person with autism" because autism is a diagnosed condition and should follow the person-first convention which is standard for diagnosed conditions. Also, this is the language used by reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Is this decision just for this article? (I started reading but got a bit discombobulated so forgive me if it was stated and I missed it.) While I agree that medical literature's word use is likely the best way to go when discussing it within the medical/scientific model, I'd support "autistic" or other identity-first language when discussing things within the social model (where it makes sense), like if discussing the autism rights movement (where many individuals tend to prefer ID-first) or specifically discussing any controversy over wording or something like that. If you need stronger sources for autistic individuals' preference, I can go scrounge them up but the only one I can pull up quickly (because I know where it's at) is a straw poll to Tumblr (a limited and possibly biased survey set) that I did (WP:OR, so much OR) that had responses in the 200s to the ID-first choice and maybe 4 on the person-first one. (But I started formulating a list of much more reliable sources when I was going to research sociocultural debates within the autism/autistic communities for a semester research project. It just got tucked away when I switched subjects, so I simply have to find it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support- "Individual with autism" or "person with autism" as we should follow the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose "individual(s) with autism". I haven't actually surveyed any sourcing, but I'd be very surprised if this is a particularly common formulation (even if one or two examples are given above). Why use odd vocabulary like "individual" when "person" will do? Support "person/people with autism". Formerip (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
References
Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{rfc}} Regarding recent debates involving identity-first ("autistic person") and "person"-first ("person with autism") language, I get the impression that it is highly unlikely that the Wikipedia community will reach a consensus favoring either system in the foreseeable future. Because both systems are used by reliable sources with specific relevance to the issue, and the broader WP:MEDRS does not apply, there is no default. Therefore, I'm proposing a compromise: Instead of phrases like "autistic person" and "person with autism", we can default to phrases like "person who is autistic", thereby acknowledging that autism is integral to identity while also preserving a "person"-first construction. Hopefully this will be satisfactory to people on both sides of the debate. Muffinator (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, having no default is correct, article writers should be free to use phrasing appropriate to the context and flow of the language.
Zad68
02:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC) - Oppose per Zad68 Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose We do not need to consistently use one term. It is like British and American English. We do not switch between the two and neither are "wrong". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why then, do you persistently revert edits which change the language from "person"-first to autistic-first? By your logic it should be up to the discretion of the editor to determine which construction is better for flow, clarity, accuracy, etc. Previously you have argued that we must preserve the "person"-first style because it matches reliable sources. Is this simply a statement that your opinion has changed? Muffinator (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Opppose vehemently, per Zad68 (not Jmh649). None of these phrases are more useful or neutral or sensitive or valid or whatever than any other, and having all three of them to use helps keep the article text from being monotonously annoying. We definitely should not enforce one vs the others. Furthermore, for basic descriptive use of the English language we are never bound to use the exact phrasing preferred by [someone's biased sampling of] reliable sources. RS tell us what the facts are, not how we must write about those facts. That aside, reverting a change from one style of phrase to another on the basis of "reliable sources" is nonsensical, since clearly the sources do not all agree.
Finally – and this is actually important, beyond this particular article – assuming that autism is "integral" to "identity" is patent original reaserch and viewpoint pushing of "identity politics" nonsense. The vast majority of people around the world who are somewhere on the autism spectrum (note: that's a fourth description we can and should use, perhaps even prefer) do not know that they are, and thus it cannot be part of their "identity" at all, much less integral (note that "identity" is not synonymous with "personality" much less "others perception of one's personality"). Our present (since some time around 2005) cultural obsession with kowtowing to whatever people declare to be, or to be important to, their self-declared sense of "identity" is an intellectual and political fad, that WP is already giving far too much undue weight to. At any rate, even people who do know they are on the autism spectrum often do not consider it integral to their identity, it's just something they work around, like people who have a bad knee. One can't push onto them, much less on the entire WP readership, one's own highly position-taking view of how they should feel about their condition. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Editors should be aware that, SMcCandlish despises experts and is thus duty bound to rant against any wording preferred or used by experts. But for medical conditions (and many other specialist fields), the terms the experts use are absolutely vital. If you don't use those terms then you are really talking about something else, perhaps more general, perhaps more specific or perhaps something else entirely. While in some aspects of autism the discussion refers to many conditions on the spectrum, in others the discussion is absolutely about one and only one definition and wording. Language does change, so what one means by "autism" and "autistic" has and will continue to change. Which makes this article so hard to write. The only way to accurately write this subject, is to use the language of the sources. Attempting to find other words, for whatever reason, is doomed to mislead. The choice of such terms, in such a difficult subject as this, can only be made by experts -- doing so by Wikipedians is OR. SMcCandlish, I don't think you have the slightest clue or appreciation how much effort and skill goes into choosing and defining medical terms. Your opinions on what language to use reflect an uneducated and unsourced position of your own devising and are, to be frank, bollocks. To suggest "autism spectrum.. is .. a fourth description we can and should use, perhaps even prefer" just shows you really haven't understood what this article is actually about. The autism identity issue is not "patent original research" but is by no means universal, as with similarities with deaf culture. Muffinator, I suggest in all politeness, that you give it a rest. -- Colin°Talk 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Zad68, Dbrodbeck, and Jmh649. For articles on medical subjects MEDRS is relevant and editors therefore use a certain terminology per their sources. Perhaps in articles that deal with "identity politics" editors should be free to use whatever terminology fits for them, but whatever their view, it should not carry over to subjects that are empirically-based that must follow constraints, such as Psychology, Medicine, and others. Parabolooidal (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Too many synapses?
I see that Courchesne et al (2007) already gets a mention in support of "An excess of neurons that causes local overconnectivity in key brain regions". So is this study by David Sulzer news: [4]? It also gets a mention in today's The Times. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's an interesting item. It's a primary study so brand-new it's not even in PubMed yet. If it's got legs it'll get picked up in a good secondary source we can use.
Zad68
18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- well, if not legs, at least axons... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- hope they're myelinated for speed!
Zad68
18:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)- or really long..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- hope they're myelinated for speed!
Any data on associations between Autism and Gender variant behavior in Children or CGN?
Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Mitochondria and white blood cells
Since talk:Causes of autism isnt getting much talk lately, I wanted to post this here. The latest bombshell in the theory that autism is a genetic disorder is here. Children with autism experience deficits in a type of immune cell that protects the body from infection. Called granulocytes, the cells exhibit one-third the capacity to fight infection and protect the body from invasion compared with the same cells in children who are developing normally. If true this is a giant step far, far away from all of the other mainstream theories about mercury and lead exposure. But if it's true that children with autism have weakened mitochondria in their white blood cells, what is the cause of that? It obviously can't be passed down 100% through genes. And if true, why are people with autism not far more susceptible to all sorts of diseases? Is this weakness only expressed during the earliest stages of life, or even only within the womb? A further complication is that this great new study is drawing its conclusions from a sample size of ten, therefore more work needs to be done.
Can this be the long-awaited answer to the question of the ultimate cause of autism? —Soap— 00:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Autism rights movement
IMO, important information missing from this page is information on the Autism rights movement. Asperger Syndrome and other "conditions" within the Autism spectrum are not considered a disorder by members of the Autism rights movement. Such individuals are part of a new brand of social movement, promoting neurodiversity. The idea of neurodiversity is that people who are wired differently (like those on the Autism spectrum) tend to suffer most because of the poor way they are treated by their environment and that society should embrace the strengths that come with Autism rather than stressing its weaknesses.
Info from Autism rights movement :
The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement within the neurodiversity movement that encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured.[1] The ARM advocates a variety of goals including a greater acceptance of autistic behaviors;[2] therapies that teach autistic individuals coping skills rather than therapies focused on imitating behaviors of neurotypical peers;[3] the creation of social networks and events that allow autistic people to socialize on their own terms;[4] and the recognition of the Autistic community as a minority group.[5]
Autism rights or neurodiversity advocates believe that the autism spectrum is genetic and should be accepted as a natural expression of the human genome. This perspective is distinct from two other likewise distinct views: (1) the mainstream perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be addressed by targeting the autism gene(s) and (2) the perspective that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and could be cured by addressing environmental causes.[1]
The movement is controversial. There are a wide variety of both supportive and critical opinions about the movement among people who are autistic or associated with autistic people. A common criticism leveled against autistic activists is that the majority of them are high-functioning or have Asperger syndrome and do not represent the views of all autistic people.[6], even though some prominent figures in the movement (such as Amy Sequenzia[7]) are nonverbal and have been labeled as low-functioning.
None causes in lead
Per wp:lead what should go into the intro is what is most interesting about the topic. What causes autism is certainly very interesting. What doesn't cause autism is noise. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is critical information to have in the lead, as many people are likely coming to the article to investigate this aspect of the subject. I don't think you have a correct understanding of WP:LEAD. Please revert yourself. --Laser brain (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- What is your definition of many? Why do you believe this? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps a majority? I don't have any data to back this up—it's just my sense of the topic based on moderate reading of popular news sources. Autism appears in the news every day, and these articles tend to discuss causes, and the vaccination controversy is at least mentioned in any article about causes. People tend to look up Wikipedia articles on topics after they hear about them in popular media. I think we are best serving readers by mentioning this information in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The lede summarizes the article. This is in the article. Plus, many people do come to this for info and with all of the antivax nonsense out there it is good to put it right there in the lede. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I looked at the top 3 articles on google news about autism and the top 3 web site searches and none of them mention vaccine. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- What is your definition of many? Why do you believe this? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- ^ a b Solomon, Andrew (2008-05-25). "The autism rights movement". New York. Archived from the original on 27 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
{{cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Mission Statement. Autism Acceptance Project. Retrieved on 2008-11-24.
- ^ Mission Statement. Aspies for Freedom. Retrieved on 2008-11-24.
- ^ Autism Network International presents Autreat. (2008-05-23) AIN.
- ^ "Declaration From the Autism Community That They Are a Minority Group" (Press release). PRWeb, Press Release Newswire. 2004-11-18. Retrieved 2007-11-07.
- ^ "The autism rights movement". Synapse.org.au.
- ^ Amy Sequenzia (2013-01-19). "When Autistics Grade Other Autistics". Ollibean.
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Redirect-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- Redirect-Class medical genetics articles
- Mid-importance medical genetics articles
- Medical genetics task force articles
- Redirect-Class neurology articles
- Mid-importance neurology articles
- Neurology task force articles
- Medicine portal selected articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- NA-Class neuroscience articles
- High-importance neuroscience articles
- NA-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Redirect-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Redirect-Class Autism articles
- Top-importance Autism articles
- WikiProject Autism articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press