This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
As the terms Autism and Autism spectrum are increasingly used in reference to the same condition, I recommend a merger of both articles. ADeviloper (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked in the archive and saw that this was briefly discussed back in 2011, here. It was also discussed briefly in the autism article back in 2008 here. ADeviloper has also currently proposed this at the Autism article here. I am going to propose that formally by tagging the articles. I will direct discussion to this thread.
My reasoning (and I may be wrong) is that ASD is the broad diagnosis in DSM V, and autism is one classification within that, and much of the content in autism is about the spectrum. It seems to me that much of the content from autism should be merged here, and this article should have WP:SUMMARY sections from each of autism, asperger's, and the other classifications, to knit the related articles together.
In any case, I don't see that this has ever been thoroughly discussed and it perhaps should be. I do acknowledge that Autism is a featured article and that editors like SandyGeorgia have worked heroically to keep it that way. Nonetheless, this seems ripe for discussion. Tagging now. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. As clearly explained at the autism article, the Featured article refers to classic autism, not the full spectrum (which includes other conditions). Articles on both are necessary, they are separate concepts, the autism article is about classic autism, and in any case, a Featured article -- vetted by a community process -- is not going to be merged away via a merge request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
hey sandy. i know you are very very close to the Autism article (and it has been a great accomplishment to get it there and even a greater one to keep it there). Can you see that there is a bunch of content in the autism article that is really about ASD? In my view, there is a bunch. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If you give me samples of any text at autism that doesn't apply to classic autism, we can discuss moving it to autism spectrum, but we can't merge away a featured article, particularly when the two terms are notable and worthy of their own articles. PS, I think this discussion is on the wrong page. Autism is an FA-- a discussion of doing away with a featured article belongs on its page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
sorry i am being unclear. i never meant to merge the whole thing - just the general parts. But that is only if folks agree that this article should be the top article in the suite. I think that is where the field is -- ASD is the top, and autism is one category within that. am i wrong? if you don't agree with that there is no point in continuing (I am sure you and others who regularly work here know the literature better than i) Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
but to answer your question, when i read the Causes section, and the Mechanism section, of the autism article, i see nothing there specific to the autistic classification per se.... Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I'm still not clear on what you are proposing, or that you are understanding the consequences and process. I have no idea what you mean by "top article" ... ?? What has happened here is that this article is junk because no one cares, while autism is in good shape because it is watched because it is featured, comprehensive, and vetted. This article has been junked up (here is what it looked like when Eubulides-- who authored the entire autism suite-- last edited it.) Our article naming convention has nothing to do with a "top" article ... so I'm lost on what you mean by that ... We have two separate topics that meet notability, and one of them is in good shape, comprehensive, well written because it is featured, while the other is the usual Wikipedia garbage dump, deteriorated from when Eubulides maintained the entire suite. Perhaps we aren't following what each other is saying.
To merge away a Featured article means to defeature it. (There have been three such cases in the history of Featured articles.) Yes, autism is one kind of ASD; if you are saying that autism is a content fork from ASD, and that content is in the wrong article, then we have to go to FAR and propose delisting autism as a featured article. Then you move good content from a featured article into this crap article, and we end up with one large bad article. Just to be sure you understand the process ... by merging content to here, you don't end up with a featured article ... you lose a featured article, and then folks unwatch, and then we get even more deterioration.
I don't know the literature better than you, because you have better journal access than I do. The autism article was written about classic autism by Eubulides; in the older versions of this article, it was only about the spectrum (who knows what all garbage is in here now since Eubulides left). The article organization once worked; if you are saying it no longer does, then we lose the Featured article. One less article for me to watch over is OK with me :) :) But it was my understanding then that nothing in the autism article was not about classic autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I am letting this go. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning on this article (and the Autism one) that "classic autism" is also sometimes referred to as Kanner's Autism to differentiate it from other forms of autism? Iridi (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Saying that ABA is universally considered effective is at the very least an NPOV issue. Many prominent autistic rights' organizations and autistic bloggers have made public statements condemning the practices as abusive and denying their effectiveness as therapies.