From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleAutism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005.
Article milestones
December 31, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
December 17, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
October 16, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
NewFavicon icon.svg           Other talk page banners

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aclark00. Peer reviewers: Pmmuab77.

This should not be a separate page from Autism Spectrum.[edit]

These terms are generally used interchangeably. For example, see

  1. The NHS's 'What is autism?' page
  2. The NAS
  3. Autism Speaks (sorry)
  4. Autism Society
  5. Autism Science Foundation

It's incredibly weird for Wikipedia to have a page titled 'autism' that is almost all about a category that was removed from the DSM in 2013. I don't know of anyone else that does this. The content on so-called 'classic autism' or 'Kanner autism' that this page focuses on should all be subsumed into the autism spectrum page, or this page should be renamed to one of those.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I keep coming back to Wikipedia's autism pages and cringing at how badly out of date they are. This division was barely defensible five to eight years ago; by now it's straightforwardly anachronistic.

Since the wider world doesn't use autism to mean something different from autistic spectrum conditions, this eccentric categorisation is inevitably leading to inconsistencies in the text, where it is not clear whether it is indeed about 'classic' autism, or about the wider spectrum.

--Oolong (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not covered by the vast majority of WP:MEDRS sources; they clearly differentiate the two. Just because a few websites state their opinion doesn't mean that it's fact. Please don't revert back to your additions as they are unfounded. Wretchskull (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth are you talking about? I've given five citations to official sources above, including at least two of the biggest autism charities in the world. Where are your citations to the contrary? Oolong (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus citations

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]

And more! Focusing on peer-reviewed papers here, even though that's not a sensible thing to demand when it comes to questions about how words are used:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]
  4. [10]

Enjoy! Oolong (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are WP:MEDRS except the nature source, which itself states that it used the word autism for ASD only to respect self-advocates and for brevity; see my talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for asserting that these sources do not meet MEDRS criteria for reliability? And what is your basis for insisting that they should anyway? This is not biomedical information. It is a question of language and usage, both within and outside of the biomedical field. Oolong (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you may have misunderstood the application of MEDRS, Wretchskull. "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources." This is simply not biomedical information, and the standards you keep referring to are simply irrelevant. It is a question of terminology, for which I have supplied more than ample references. Nevertheless by way of 100% MEDRS compliance, I refer you to the textbook 'Autism'. Fletcher-Watson, Sue; Happé, Francesca (2019). Autism: A New Introduction to Psychological Theory and Current Debate. Routledge. p. 30. ISBN 9781138106123. Oolong (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment is that there would have to be an overwhelming number of sources which showed that both terms are synonymous. The sources provided above by Oolong are not enough to make the case for a merger. A merger would be a big deal, since the Autism spectrum page is over 148,000 bytes and this page is over 137,000 bytes. I do not support a merger unless there is a consensus among users for such a merger and a majority of sources show that the terms "autism" and "autism spectrum" are synonymous. Unless those tenets can be met, which is doubtful considering the sizable nature of this page and the autism spectrum page, I cannot and do not support such a merger. I doubt that many users on here would support such a merger either. As such, I wholeheartedly agree with Wretchskull and say that Oolong is completely wrongheaded, even though well-intentioned. Historyday01 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally proposed a merger, with main discussion at Talk:Autism spectrum#Merger proposal; Outdated terminology/taxonomy.

The fact that all of the major autism charities and many health authorities use 'autism' synonymously with 'autism spectrum' should be strong enough evidence. Careful examination of the 'autism' entry here will also show that it has evidently been written partly by people using 'autism' as a synonym for 'autism spectrum', which many of the sources it cites also do; as such it is a hodgepodge of content about the obsolete diagnostic category sometimes referred to as 'autistic disorder', and the broader concept of 'autism' which was used as far back as the 1940s to include what later became known as Asperger's syndrome, and is now used far more often in this broader sense.

Anyway, as I say, main discussion over at the other page. Oolong (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Addressing Misinformation in Special Education[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TGBTG2022. Peer reviewers: Spantalian76.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022[edit]

Carletteyt (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article doesn´t talks about the link between digestive problems and the same.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply],diarrhea%2C%20compared%20with%20their%20peers. Carletteyt (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, might want to take this to the autism spectrum talk page. This one is due to be merged, and this doesn't sound like a request specific to the historical category of Kanner autism. Oolong (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference, not disorder.[edit]

I'm "autistic" and calling autism a disorder is honestly hurtful to me. I'm very, very offended and I'm not happy about it. Call it a difference, not a disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:708D:A901:A51F:FA29:5CAE:D6B1 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may be confused between "disorder" and "disease" or "disability" autism used to be considered a disease or disability, but in order to be less offensive to autistic people, and less dehumanizing, it is now considered a disorder. calling it a difference is basically the same as calling it a disorder. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the term disorder very explicitly indicates that something is wrong with a person. American Heritage Dictionary:
  1. A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
  2. A breach of civic order or peace; a public disturbance.
  3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body.
Autism is not an ailment, and it certainly doesn't fit either of the other two definitions! There are good reasons why the label of 'disorder' is widely rejected.
It is a disability, though. Like all disabilities, it should be understood primarily through the lens of the social model of disability. It's kind of important that autism can qualify as a disability; many of the human rights that disabled people have were won through hard struggle, and a high proportion of autistic people will at some point need to invoke their rights to, for example, reasonable adjustments in the workplace, education and public services. Oolong (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
American Heritage Dictionary? Oxford Dictionaries has this:
"[countable, uncountable] (medical) a condition or illness that causes problems with the way part of the body or brain works" I think in the UK the word "condition" is seen as quite neutral in this context. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also autistic, but "disorder" is the term for that. Because it is a "disorder" for the neurotypical norm. Especially, since some functions regarded as "normal among people" are clearly impaired or disfunctioning (although some functions are better wired than among NTs). Using "sensible langauge" usually just leads to unscientific misinterpretations, and is in the end even more hurtful for autistics.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this point; this is more of an anecdote, but general disability rights/justice conversations I've been party to recently tend to hold that avoidance of directly calling it what it is by surrounding it in a euphemism is not only muddying but also generally stigmatizes disability more than normalizes it. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd because disorder is always how I've explained my autistic brain to neurotypicals. The mind being like a bookshelf, with different books symbolizing thoughts and ideas, the autistic brain I think is a bit disorganized, so all of the same books are there, but they can be harder to find, and you might end up with the wrong one. I've learned more recently though just how variable autism is, and I wouldn't be surprised if this analogy only works for MY brain. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think for a lot of autistic people it's quite the opposite - they feel like they're very determined to ensure that everything in their head is well-organised and sensibly filed. Things which don't fit in with the rules and categorisation systems they're trying to use are a source of great frustration (often leading to those rules being discarded). There's an analogy here with the well-known tendency for autistic kids to play by lining things up, often in order. One example. Oolong (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022[edit]

Hi you use the puzzle piece logo , amd though histroically used , i think its very important you write about how a large portion of autistic adult reject the puzzle piece and auitsm speaks, as it hints we have a piece missing , we are not whole , there are many articles about autistic peoples opinions and how allistic support carers for autistic children are being used as the majority voice here (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: I'm not seeing such a logo in use anywhere in the article. Can you please provide more information regarding your concerns? You may also want to provide reliable sources to back up your assertions. DonIago (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they're right, there's an 'autism awareness ribbon' covered in puzzle pieces at the start of the Society & Culture section. Sources on why that's a problem: [11][12][13] Oolong (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't look closely enough at that to realize it was made of puzzle pieces. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: I have procedurally closed this edit request. If the IP wishes to have the logo simply removed that would require consensus amongst editors and wouldn't be performed via an edit request. If they would like prose written to describe how a majority of autistic adults reject the logo then that would either need to be provided by the IP themselves or the IP would create an account and edit the page once autoconfirmed. In either scenario, while both potentially valid options, neither would be performed through an edit request. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fair enough on a procedural level, but I think the OP was basically right; removing a symbol that has negative connotations and is widely disliked within the community it relates to shouldn't be too controversial, right?
I've gone ahead and just removed the puzzle piece logo. I'm not sure this entry warrants a discussion of why that's the right thing to do; probably best to reserve that for the main societal and cultural aspects of autism entry (which only touches on it briefly). Oolong (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we shouldn't include both symbols and their controversies, it seems to me like the best way to keep a neutral POV as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could, if you have the time and energy to write it up!
I really don't think Wikipedian neutrality requires it, though, and I worry a bit about adding more material to this entry when it's theoretically on its way to getting merged with Autism spectrum and/or a renamed low-functioning autism. If you're moved to cover the controversies, societal and cultural aspects of autism might be a better place? Oolong (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]