Talk:Autism/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
"Autistic person" versus "person 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.
Which do people think we should use? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- For most conditions we say "person with X" rather than "X person" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer "autist" (not to be confused with "artist", by speakers of non-rhotic English). Please see wikt:autist and http://www.autismstudies.info/AutismStudies.info/Mind_of_an_autist.html and http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt242402.html. My second choice is the noun "autistic" (like the noun "diabetic" and not to be confused with the adjective "artistic").
- —Wavelength (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As the person who made the original edits that prompted this (which were reverted because I did not verify consensus first), I would like to share the arguments in favor of identity-first language and against "person"-first.
- Autism is an integral part of a person's identity, and the entirety of their neurology, not an accessory that can be distinguished from the person who has it. We do not use "person with Buddhism", "person with homosexuality", "person with African lineage", or "person with femaleness", so this change would increase consistency, not reduce it.
- The hypothesis behind "person"-first language, at least in the case of disabilities, is that it forces others to see that person as human rather than an embodiment of their disability. It has the opposite effect. By referring to autism as a separate entity that is attached to the person, the autism is dehumanized. The person is then dehumanized as well, because the autism is in fact NOT a separate entity and IS the person.
- The promotion of "person"-first language, especially over the objections advocating for identity-first, carries a negative connotation. It implies that whatever comes after "person" is something undesirable that one should not want as part of their identity, rather than a source of pride and community. Compare "Person with HIV".
- The vast majority of the autistic community, especially the autism rights movement, prefers identity-first language. The same respect that is given to the deaf and blind communities should be given to autism as well.
- It should be noted in this discussion that Wikipedia has an article titled People-first_language with a properly referenced criticism section.
Muffinator (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's a compelling argument, Muffinator. People-first language includes this reference. Although not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, it is interesting to read and pretty convincing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS doesn't apply to matters of group identity, I would think.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
- MEDRS doesn't apply to matters of group identity, I would think.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
- That's a compelling argument, Muffinator. People-first language includes this reference. Although not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, it is interesting to read and pretty convincing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The adjective+noun combo is pretty common - at least in Australia. In the media it seems to be an even split between "autistic children" and "children with autism" with the occasional "autistic" as a noun. Sorry, I know anecdotes don't count. I guess I'm saying we can use either or both and just ignore the politics/prescriptions, relying rather on what fits the rhythm of expression best. If you've used "autistic children" in one sentence and need to refer to them two sentences later, rather than repeat it you could say "children with autism." Ian Hacking uses "autist". I suppose we could throw that in too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- i agree with Muffinator. The problem with saying "a person has autism" makes it sound like that person is sick, and they aren't. I mean, I myself am autistic and proud, and know that a lot of autistic people are so proud of who they are, even if their parents aren't. - Speedfish 19:13 7 May (UTC)
- And yet autism is in the DSM 5 so the APA at least thinks they are sick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The DSM-5 also includes gender dysphoria, so I would advise against using this sort of argument. The DSM is not an opinion paper on what constitutes sickness. Muffinator (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- And yet autism is in the DSM 5 so the APA at least thinks they are sick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- i agree with Muffinator. The problem with saying "a person has autism" makes it sound like that person is sick, and they aren't. I mean, I myself am autistic and proud, and know that a lot of autistic people are so proud of who they are, even if their parents aren't. - Speedfish 19:13 7 May (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with the identity-first standpoint. Going back to at least the 90s there's been a sizable community of autistics who prefer "autistic" over "person with autism". Though far from unanimous, it's got a strong foothold and possibly a majority. —Soap— 22:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is there another sizable group opposed to autistic, or is it just the person-first formulation that has opponents. If the latter is the case, we can just drop the person-first language. (If not - if there is another huge crowd that opposes autistic - we may just have to ignore both.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc James, for starting this conversation. I know only a few autistics personally, but I keep up with several on their blogs. I've never even heard of anyone preferring to be called a "person with autism" and I'm glad to see that "autistic person" seems to be the consensus here! (It never occurred to me that this may sound like "artistic person". I think most autistics might like that version, too.) --Hordaland (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Autistic person sounds fine. On a parallel track it's "deaf community" "deaf world" "deaf person" as far as I know - "person with deafness" hasn't crossed my path to date. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
- Oh but please, no "persons" - the plural of person is (almost always) people.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
- Oh but please, no "persons" - the plural of person is (almost always) people.
Why not use them both? There are good arguments for both, cf. the excellent compilation of links at the end of this essay: Identity-First Language. Also, sometimes it's awkward, grammatically, to use one form or the other exclusively. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 23:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- If no large group opposes "autistic X" and a large and relevant group is affronted by "X with autism" - and both formulations are equally accurate (which they are) - we should employ the formulation that does not alienate a large relevant group so as to make the article available to as wide an audience as possible. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty much agree, with the caveat that opposition is not always vocal, and affirmative preferences should carry some weight. I guess I should add that I do know autistic people who prefer person-first, and a few of them also dislike identity-first, including one who is quite close and dear to me. However, I should also add that of the links mentioned above (bottom of page) expressing a preference for person-first language and/or both, none are by autistic people! And yet there isn't unanimity. I'd suggest going mainly with "autistic people" but not totally abandoning "people with autism" or "people on the autism spectrum", particularly when it flows better grammatically. But I don't feel strongly about it personally, except on behalf of the person with autism whom I just mentioned, who doesn't have the ability to post here. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 21:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
"Person on the autistic spectrum" is sometimes used in print here in the UK. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I hadn't given the distinction much thought, but I find Muffinator's arguments persuasive. Absent any compelling reasons why autistic person is wrong I support it usage here. AIRcorn (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "On the spectrum" is a politically neutral phrase that is sometimes used to avoid picking sides in this exact debate. It is used outside the UK as well. Muffinator (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The correct way is to say person with autism. See List of people with autism spectrum disorders. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I would say person with autism. I feel the adjective gives a derogatory presence. --JustBerry (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- JustBerry, you are using their own argument against them. Autistic people do not find "autism" to be a derogatory word at all. It's who they are. If one could take away their autism (a foreign and impossible thought), they would not be the same person at all. That's why they call themselves autistics (sometimes with a capital A) or autistic people. --Hordaland (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Muffinator's arguement. Anecdotally, I had my autistic son read the arguments, and he agreed with it as well. Interestingly, he said that if we need to use a term to define a group of people with autism, he'd prefer autistic people. However, he finds the use of the word as a noun (e.g., "he's autistic") offensive. I think the later speaks to the idea that it's an integral (and to him unimportant) part of his personality. Ian Furst (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's important to recognize a bit of nuance as to what "define" means. When discussing another person, it is best to focus on (or define them by) their accomplishments, rather than anything they were born with. Many feminists lament that women's accomplishments are often limited to being the first woman to do something or as an inspiration to women. In that sense it is better to define an autistic athlete (for example) primarily as an athlete and secondarily as autistic. However, in a literal sense, autism does define every autistic person. It is nonsensical to try to imagine an allistic version of an autistic person, because it wouldn't be the same person any more. Autism is more comparable to gender than race. Muffinator (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Ian Furst, your son is wrong about the grammar: The sentence "He is autistic" contains a pronoun, a verb, and an adjective. It is exactly like the sentences "He is angry" or "He is handsome": subject, verb, adjective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at WikiProject Disability
- Please see WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide - A proposal to create a guideline that would address issues such as this, is being discussed. If we can create such a guide the need for discussions such as this, (multiplied on many pages) would be drastically reduced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Accurate terminology vs Style and future direction
Much of the discussion above assumes that "person with autism" and "autistic person" are equivalent and therefore the form of language we use is a matter of style. This then leaves us to decide whether to follow the style of certain publications or to come to consensus on our own style. If this assumption were correct, then I'd support the notion that our style should be determined by wikipedians rather than physicians (who don't always have a good track record of using appropriate language). Some of the discussion here and elsewhere is based on the view that people with autism are different rather than being disabled or having a disorder (Autism rights movement). It should be recognised that this view is far from universal and without criticism. For example, recent edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style guide (draft) say:
- Autism is a pervasive developmental disability, meaning it is lifelong and affects a person in their entirety; one of the reasons not to say a person "has autism" is that it doesn't make much sense. Classic autism, high-functioning autism, Asperger syndrome, and PDD-NOS as diagnoses are all deprecated as parts of the autism spectrum and should be referred to as such or simply as autism, except for historical purposes.
- Given that autism is neither a disease nor a disorder, one should avoid describing it through pathological terms like risk factors, symptoms, and treatment. It should never be referred to as a disorder because it is not a disorder.
The views expressed in the quoted section above are simply incompatible with this article as currently written. The reason, is explained in the hatnote:
- This article is about the classic autistic disorder; some writers use the word autism when referring to the range of disorders on the autism spectrum or to the various pervasive developmental disorders.
This article is about what DSM-IV calls "autistic disorder" and everywhere the unqualified word "autism" is used, that's the intended meaning. As such, any reader of the article should equate "person with autism" as "person with autistic disorder as defined by DSM-IV". Most of the facts and figures in this article are drawn from historical papers that use the DSM-IV definition. Exceptions are where the article refers to the wider autistic spectrum or other diagnoses such as Aspergers. It is clear from the above quoted text that some campaigning here for a change in terminology believe that the word "autism" should be used simply to refer to the whole autistic spectrum . That's a reasonable argument but is incompatible with this article as currently written. Similarly, the statement that discussing "risk factors, symptoms, and treatment" is forbidden is also incompatible with the current article which is about a medical disorder. I suggest that those tinkering with the wording here are not editing the article they think they are editing! The changes, well intentioned they may be, have actually made the text factually incorrect. Because one cannot use facts and figures that cover only a narrow group of individuals (those with DSM-IV autistic disorder) and use them to refer to a wide group of individuals with ASD (or autistic people, as some here advocate).
The fact is that this is largely a historical article, mostly written many years ago by an editor who is no longer editing on WP. Despite the strong statements made by some, these "old" or "deprecated" terms have not disappeared yet, nor is the change globally accepted and implemented. Possibly a way forward is to split out an article discussing this historical diagnosis (Autistic disorder) and retain "Autism" as an article discussing all aspects of the spectrum. The Autistic spectrum disorder article needs work. But one must remember that while one can revise terminology in a new diagnostic manual, one cannot revise the historic medical literature from which one must draw the source text. It would take editors of very high calibre and familiarity with the literature to accurately write such articles, while drawing from literature sources that use a mix of terms and historical criteria. Frankly, I don't see such editors on WP at present. Perhaps we should ask for professional help?
I strongly suggest the language in this article be reverted to what it used before, which is likely to closely match the language used in the sources it draws on. Doing so will make this article accurate even if some would prefer it worded differently. Accuracy is far more important that style. The now-closed discussion above was imo well intentioned but more suited to a discussion about how to write a newspaper article about autism than a discussion about how to refer to individuals with a (now historical) medical diagnosis in an article about such. But I'm not going to get into an edit war by advocacy-editors. Someone else can be bold. For the future, we need to continue to discuss where to take these various autism-related articles. However, anyone thinking that an article on a medical condition should avoid referring to it as a medical condition is likely to be sorely disappointed. The term in DSM-V is "Autism Spectrum Disorder" and it is defined in terms of impairments, deficits, difficulties and symptoms: those at the severe end of the spectrum are quite profoundly disabled. -- Colin°Talk 21:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is a lot of information here, but with respect to the text quoted from the style guide, it is important to note that the edit history for the style guide shows it has been heavily edited by Muffinator, who appears to hold a minority opinion in this discussion and appears to be in disagreement with many others on this very issue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the current draft of the style guide, you may notice that it says "except for historical purposes." I agree that this article is effectively historical. "Autistic disorder" as defined by the DSM-IV is deprecated and no longer recognized as a diagnosis. This page should be moved to the title "autistic disorder" or "classic autism". Then, the "autism" title can be used to move Autism spectrum or made into a redirect page pointing to autism spectrum. Muffinator (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just because we now have a DSM 5 does not mean that all previous research gets thrown out. So no the DSM5 does not make all research based on the DSM4 depricated.
- We will slowly switch over to newer terminology and use a mix of both for the next few years as the research also switches over.
- I have restored the previous wording as changes of ASD to autism are still being made which confuses matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Autism as a medical diagnosis and the autism rights movement
There has been discussion that those involved in the autism rights movement tend to prefer "autistic individual" over "individual with autism". Therefore, it would seem appropriate to use "autistic individual" for articles about the autism rights movement. Also, "autistic individual" or "autistic person" would seem appropriate on BLP's where the subject has expressed a preference to be referred to as such; however, articles about autism (the medical diagnosis) or articles which mention autism in general should use people-first language (ie "children with autism", "person with autism", etc). People-first language is standard for medical diagnosis and people-first language predominates in reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- All I will say is that I support referring to individuals in the way that those individuals prefer to be referred to. This practice has the same justification as referring to people by their preferred gender pronouns and not a different set of pronouns. Muffinator (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support - There are a few (or several) book sources we could point to to verify this as well. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Move to "classic autism"
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Autism → Classic autism – The current title of this article causes a lot of confusion. "Autism" and "autistic" usually refer to the entire autistic spectrum. This article is about a specific diagnosis defined by the DSM-IV. Therefore, I propose the following changes:
- Delete the "classic autism" redirect page.
- Rename this article to "classic autism".
- Create a redirect page with the original "autism" title, with autism spectrum as its target.
- Add a note to the top of the autism spectrum article, stating that "Autism" and "autistic" redirect here. For the disorder defined by the DSM-IV, see classic autism. Muffinator (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do not see the literature as using the terms in this manner. Thus I oppose this suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just because some sources use ambiguous language does not mean Wikipedia should. Muffinator (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do not see the literature as using the terms in this manner. Thus I oppose this suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If we are going move this article, it seems "severe autism" would be more appropriate, because under the old DSM guidelines, an "autism" diagnosis was given to those on the spectrum most severely affected, and this is the previous diagnostic category this article refers to. However, "classis autism", "Tanner autism", "autistic disorder", "low-functioning autism" and "profound autism" would seem to be appropriate sub-titles or redirects, if such a move were carried out. [[1]]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I made an assumption based on the note that currently exists at the top of the page. Support the title of autistic disorder. Definitely oppose "severe autism" because said variance is not yet recognized in this historical context, and in the modern context, autism is recognized as a spectrum, therefore the terms mild and severe don't apply. Muffinator (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose we can't just make up terms. The literature does not use this term. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The DSM5 uses the term "autistic spectrum disorder" which we use as well. The DSM5 specifically says that this includes autism. Thus our layout agrees with the DSM5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is not an issue of reliable sources but one of ambiguity and confusion. Common usage also matters. Muffinator (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really see a lot of confusion here actually. I see that you don't like the title. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that we are having discussions about the entire autism spectrum on this page rather than Talk:Autism spectrum is one piece of evidence demonstrating confusion. Muffinator (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really see a lot of confusion here actually. I see that you don't like the title. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support on the grounds that the title "autism" is not precise enough. Muffinator (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Given this is a FA level article I'd have hoped to see a demonstrated support through reliable sources. I note that when conducting a Google books search "classic autism" has 4,460 hits[2] while "autism" results in 1.5 million[3]. Generalist searching are looking for basic information on autism, this article does that and the autism spectrum article does not. I see the proposed move creating ambiguity and confusion not resolving it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you understand how search engines work, it's a no-brainer that the general term "autism" would have more results than the specific term "classic autism". I'd like to shift this discussion over to the title of "autistic disorder" rather than "classic autism" so that we don't have to make a whole separate RM. Usage of the word autism typically refers to the entire spectrum and not to "autistic disorder" as defined by DSM-IV. Therefore, "basic information" would be an introduction to the spectrum. Muffinator (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Alternative suggestion. I think this article should be renamed to something else while Autism should be a disambiguation page. High-functioning and low-functioning and Asberger's and autism spectrum and others each need a one-liner on a disambiguation page to help readers find what they are interested in. None of the 'old' terms is going to disappear for a very long time, if ever. --Hordaland (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Autism has a well defined meaning with lots and lots of refs to support this. Yes there are subtypes of autism which can be subpages. We do not need a disambig. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support making autism a disambiguation page. The wide variety of understandings and misunderstandings can be seen on this talk page alone, and show that disambiguation itself is necessary. Muffinator (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I think this should be a discussion rather than a vote, and there is no hurry. "Classic autism" is a non-starter per others: we can't just invent terms or pick rarely-used terms. There's a case for the autism page to remain currently discussing what, for the sake of clarity, I'll call "autistic disorder" per DSM-IV. Much of the literature takes that meaning for "autism". Our policy on article naming and medical guidelines should be referred to. However, I think many contemporary uses of the term "autism" and many wikilinks on autism and autistic probably refer to the whole spectrum and the pressure to break away from the old diagnosis will occur sooner or later. DSM-V is an admission that the previous distinction among components of the spectrum was arbitrary and no longer helpful. My current thoughts are that we should eventually have articles autistic disorder and Asperger syndrome that discuss the historical diagnoses as medical conditions. Such articles will remain useful as those are conditions that people were (and in many places still are) diagnosed with. It will take a long time before these (particularly the latter) are irrelevant terms. We should move to creating a new article Autism spectrum disorder which may include material currently at autism spectrum but be more focused on a single medical diagnosis than a discussion on a range of diagnoses and disorders.
- What the link autism or autistic should take one to is not easy to decide. A disambiguation page is not the solution I think. Editors are discouraged from linking to such pages and yet the word "autism" may be used in text (and drawn from sources) where one cannot easily decide which meaning is intended. One solution for autism I suggest, is to be a parent article for many, per Summary Style, and for it not to discuss solely a medical-disorder but the whole topic of autism. This will include: A discussion of the change in diagnostic terms over the years. The change in attitude towards the cause and the neurology / psychology influences. The rise of Asperger's as a cultural phenomenon. The communities and rights movement. Related diseases (e.g. a proportion of those with tuberous sclerosis are on the spectrum, but the above disorders tend to include only idiopathic cases). And so on. It would, per summary style, have (sub)sections on old and new disorders. -- Colin°Talk 07:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The article on psychology focuses on neurotypical psychology and serves as an example of what an article on the entire subject of autism might look like. Muffinator (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Confused. How does an article on the academic discipline "psychology" compare to an article of the diagnosed psychological condition "autism"? It's not clear where you are going with this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- An article appropriate for the title of "autism" is slightly broader than just autistic psychology, as psychology is narrower than everything there is to know about neurotypical people. However, this is balanced by the fact that less research is available on autistic people. Balance isn't exactly a goal (although WP:DUE may apply in some situations), but I'm justifying the comparison since I was asked a question.Muffinator (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still confused because the discipline of psychology isn't specific to "neurotypical people". Autism, ADHD, bi-bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc are all studied under the academic discipline of psychology. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- This was just a comment stating what sort of article a general article on autism could be modeled after. I think we are starting to give undue weight to it. ;) Muffinator (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still confused because the discipline of psychology isn't specific to "neurotypical people". Autism, ADHD, bi-bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc are all studied under the academic discipline of psychology. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- An article appropriate for the title of "autism" is slightly broader than just autistic psychology, as psychology is narrower than everything there is to know about neurotypical people. However, this is balanced by the fact that less research is available on autistic people. Balance isn't exactly a goal (although WP:DUE may apply in some situations), but I'm justifying the comparison since I was asked a question.Muffinator (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Confused. How does an article on the academic discipline "psychology" compare to an article of the diagnosed psychological condition "autism"? It's not clear where you are going with this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not all of us are children.
There are few mentions of adults in this article, not to mention instances of "children" when "individuals" would work better. There is also the strangely worded "Not many children with autism live independently after reaching adulthood..." at the beginning, which comes across as referring to adults as children.
Further reading:
--Evice (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Evice, for that link. I've read the article (paper) and found it to be important and very illuminating. Personally I know only one autistic child at present and I read the well-written blogs of several intelligent autistic bloggers, all women, I think. So I hadn't really considered the, now made obvious, infantilizing of autistic adults.
- As it says in that paper, "The current employment rates for autistic people are dismal." True, and that may explain why support organizations, at least the big and wealthy ones, are started and run by parents; they have more money than autistic adults usually have.
- I hope the authors of this page consider your comment, and that paper, as they work on this and related articles. --Hordaland (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 18 July 2014
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Autism → Autistic disorder – As the closed RM above was about a title that is not used by subject's origin, I'd like to restart the discussion with regards to the title of "autistic disorder", which is the actual diagnosis used by DSM-IV. The confusion remains as "autism" usually refers to the entire spectrum and not to this specific diagnosis. Muffinator (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Oppose This is a featured article, I don't think anyone has had a problem understanding what the article is about. The term autism is just fine. I don't see a compelling reason to change it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is not the comprehension complexity of the article, but the title of "autism" misrepresenting the content as describing the entire spectrum when really it is about a specific diagnosis defined in the DSM-IV. The current title is not specific enough. Muffinator (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the article at this title fails to cover the spectrum of the topic, then the article should be expanded to cover the spectrum. "Autism" is the common name of the condition expressed here. bd2412 T 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- That article already exists at autism spectrum. Would you support moving that article to the "autism" title? Muffinator (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Good were it is per WP:Common name Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Autism" is also the common name for autism spectrum so the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that this should become a disambiguation page. Muffinator (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Austism spectrum is the common name for the group of conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. "Autism spectrum" is the name for a group of related diagnoses, and "autism" is the common name for the autism spectrum, so by the transitive property, "autism" is the common name for the group of related diagnoses on the autism spectrum. Muffinator (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Austism spectrum is the common name for the group of conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Autism" is also the common name for autism spectrum so the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that this should become a disambiguation page. Muffinator (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
Are you going to keep submitting move requests until the article is moved? That may sound flippant, it is not meant to be. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a system for moving from one proposed title to a better one in the middle of a RM, so the only way to give attention to the better title is to wait for the previous RM to close and then start a new one. One retry does not constitute obsession. The fact that this article was featured does not mean that it can't continue to be improved, or even that it was accurate in the first place since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Muffinator (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that is a yes then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Did I say "yes"? Muffinator (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that is a yes then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Inclusion of new DSM V criteria in main definition
A fourth criteria has been defined in the DSM V manual, refering to inadequate sensory processing and should be added to main definition. In other symptoms section, questioning of criteria has to been changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
Zad6802:00, 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.
Zad6818:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- well, if not legs, at least axons... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 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.
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 [5] 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.[8][9][10][11] 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" [6]. 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.[8][9][10][11] 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, [[7]] 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, [[7]] 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
- ^ 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.
- ^ http://autisticadvocacy.org/identity-first-language/
- ^ http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2011/11/person-first-language-why-it-matters.html
- ^ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/autism-unexpected/2010/aug/2/autistic-or-person-autism/
- ^ http://autismwomensnetwork.org/i-am-autistic/
Any data on associations between Autism and Gender variant behavior in Children or CGN?
Issues with new edits
Extended content
|
|---|
Female-Male Disparity in AutismEmbodiment-Model ExplanationsAn embodiment model looks at how the social world is materialized through the constant interactions between bodies and their environments. Examining Autism through an embodiment approach incorporates “hypotheses about initial biological vulnerabilities to autism - which may or may not be differentially distributed in relation to sex biology - and their interactions with gender relations, which are demonstrably different for male and female infants.”[1] 1st Explanation: Differences in gendered socialization- There are vulnerabilities that are randomly distributed amongst males and females, but because of gendered socialization, these vulnerabilities are expressed differently as Autism symptoms. This leads to increased Male : Female ratios.[2]
2nd Explanation: The biological vulnerabilities to Autism are more prevalent in males, but these vulnerabilities are only amplified by gendered socialization.[8] Other ExplanationsThese explanations argue that the vulnerabilities to Autism are more prevalent in males, but gendered socialization does not affect and/or amplify these vulnerabilities. These explanations do not view gendered socialization as a factor in producing M : F differences, and these are the more popular and widely-held popular views in scientific literature.[9] Androgen theory and Extreme Male Brain Theory of AutismThis theory suggests that symptoms of Autism Spectrum are partly a result of higher testosterone levels, which explains why there is a much higher prevalence of autism in males. Autistic brains are described as the “extreme of the typical male brain”. There have been findings that suggest that autistic individuals, regardless of sex, have higher performance on tests on which males typically perform higher, such as measures of intuitive physics, and have lower performance on tests on which females typically excel such as measures relating to empathy or “intuitive psychology” [10]. There is a direct correlation of Fetal Testosterone (FT) levels with many autistic traits determined by the Child Autism Spectrum Quotient and Childhood Asperger screening test, such as lower scores on the Child Empathizing Quotient. Girls with Autism are more likely to exhibit “male” characteristics in their mental abilities and play preferences, Often individuals with autism develop and manifest in other conditions that are androgen-related. For instance, acne, Hirsutism, irregular menstrual cycles and dismenhorrea are more common in autistic individuals. While there is not evidence that this is a direct result of autism, high testosterone and androgen levels exist in all conditions. [11] Disparities in DiagnosisA male predominance exists in the diagnosis of autism and high functioning females are often not diagnosed until later in life. Autism tests do not take into account the importance of stratification of sex or the aetiological role of sex-linked factors at genetic, endocrine, epigenetic, and environmental level. The symptoms that are often studied (behavioral and cognitive) when a patient is suspected of having autism differs from person to person. Research suggests that it is more common for a female to be diagnosed with autism if she shows more concurrent behavioral and cognitive problems than males do. Otherwise, the diagnoses may be made much later in the female’s life. [12]Much of the research surrounding autistic patients focuses on its prevalence in males. As a result, researchers argue that females are underrepresented in the research, creating skewed statistics. For example when females are tested for autism they are tested for the same autistic phenotypes as males and are then, as a result, misdiagnosed because their results rarely match the results of males who have autism.[13] Autism as a Difference, Not a DisorderRecently, there has been a movement to classify autism as a difference and not a disorder. This would put autism under the umbrella of neurodiversity. Neurodiversity relates to the idea that the human population is made up of people that are different neurologically or have different brain wiring. This means that autism is just a natural variation among human brains, rather than an abnormal condition. Neurodiversity is also related to rights, non-discrimination and other social and political issues about autism. For example, Pier Jaarsma and Stellan Welin say that using the phrase ‘person with autism’ to describe an autistic individual suggests that there is a normal person trapped behind the autism. It creates this notion the people are separable from autism. This term is met with opposition from the neurodiversity movement because they believe that “autism is inseparable from the person and being autistic influences every single element of who a person is.”So instead of using the phrase “person with autism” one might prefer to be called an autist.[14] Many researchers prefer to refer to Autism Spectrum Disorder as “Autism Spectrum Condition”, as it acknowledges that this is a medical condition with differences in the brain to those without autism, but does not label or stigmatize autistic individuals. [15] This addition has a number of issues thus placed here until addressed:
BestDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Also issues with this: Autism in AdulthoodAdults diagnosed with Autism are known to have increased susceptibility to psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety and affective disorders or catatonic syndromes[16] and other disorders like schizophrenia and seizures.[17] Adults with Autism are also often misdiagnosed with disorders like Compulsive Disorder (OCD).[18] Diagnosis of autism for adults is an area that is currently under study and review; there is little research to date. There have been several studies that observe adults who were diagnosed with autism as a child, which report that, for 30%-40% of autists, functioning improves over time with increases in verbal IQ, improvements in self-awareness and self-control, and increases in communication abilities. In contrast, other studies have also shown that 10%-30% of autists show an increase in hyperactivity and aggression as adults. Those whose symptoms worsen is likely caused by increase of stressful conditions in adulthood, lack of consistent structure in daily life, or other disruptions in home life. [19].
RevertStudents (apparently from several different classes ???) editing a Featured article (see WP:OWN#Featured articles), no template on talk, no apparent understanding of Wikipedia policy and guideline, off-topic content added, sourcing issues ... in conclusion, revert endorsed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) References
None causes in leadPer 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)
I believe that content belongs in the article, and should be restored.[8] Vaccines and autism are, doh, a well known controversy, still, even today, after Wakefield. WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Please restore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Mitochondria and white blood cellsSince 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)
Mothers exposed to fine particle pollution during the third trimester faced doubled risks that their child would suffer from autismRaanan Raz, Andrea L. Roberts, Kristen Lyall, Jaime E. Hart, Allan C. Just, Francine Laden and Marc G. Weisskopf "Autism Spectrum Disorder and Particulate Matter Air Pollution before, during, and after Pregnancy: A Nested Case–Control Analysis within the Nurses’ Health Study II Cohort" Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408133 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408133/ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/12/ehp.1408133.acco.pdf PMID 25522338 Autism risk linked to particulate air pollution http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/18/idUSL1N0U01ZX20141218 NEW YORK Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:01am EST Reuters
Particulates and proximity to agriculture (pesticides and herbicides), and sulforaphaneSeveral studies find a link between last trimester and infant proximity (exposure) to particulates, heavy metals, and pesticides/herbicides, and the incidence of autism. For example, studies find that living near a freeway, downwind from LAX, and near agriculture fields raises the risk of having an autistic child. Here's one review we can use: "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24518932 Then I read this study http://www.pnas.org/content/111/43/15550.full Sulforaphane is found naturally in chewed broccoli, and sulforaphane is safe at ~high dosages (up to 100 cups a day of broccoli). I think every parent should try this treatment. Besides, there many other reasons to eat raw broccoli florets! I'm going to add this information to the text, hopefully after comment. I would also like comment on the fact that it's not usually inherited genes but gene expressions (molded by lifestyle and environmental factors that correlate with the incidence of autism (and most other health issues). Most likely that will generate another silly editor fight, and I'm not willing to play. It was extremely hard it was for me to improve cancer! I know the sulforaphane research is not a review, but it's gold standard with strong findings. The liver uses sulforaphane to help metabolize pollutants (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/501.full.pdf+html). Most Americans are grossly sulforaphane deficient. We can't officially draw this link, but isn't it interesting autism is associated with pollution and possibly by reducing that toxin load you can reduce symptoms?32cllou (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
High quality reviews (secondary research) good to includeDear SandyyGeorgia, the research I used [10] for that one new sentence ...for the sentence you reverted... meets Wiki standards (high quality secondary research). The two above should neither be lumped with my entry in talk, nor included in the article! There are several recent research reviews finding similar that could be used instead. They also contain important missing info (wiki is increasingly dated). These reviews include the following: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. You should find them all published within the last few years, in high quality journals, and reviews of the literature (secondary).32cllou (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC) My aplogies, 32cllou, you are correct, and with Doc's changes and mine, we're good-- thanks for the addition. Please note the citation style in the article, and that FAs must maintain consistent citations. [17] Having a PMID makes it much easier to locate the right source and make sure it's a review, and I missed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Reviews suggested by 32cllou:
Citation formatThe major justification for the {{vcite}} templates was faster page reloads. The new Wikipedia:Lua based {{cite}} templates are much more efficient hence the speed advantage of {{vcite}} over {{cite}} has been significantly reduced. However the vcite template still offers advantages in that the imbedded template and displayed citation are smaller. For this reason, a new {{vcite2 journal}} template has been created that is identical to {{cite journal}} template except that it accepts (using an optional
32cllou, the citation format for this article:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC) |