Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Review of the reviews, and sulforaphane

I understand. I'll do the citations as you request. Thank you.

Reading all that stuff yesterday ... ASD is essentially caused by lifestyle and the environment. Specifically, a stressed out women having a baby late in life, the latter probably because her body is more doped up with pollutants. And the environment includes exposure to pollution (not just air Doc). Pollution includes exposure (human absorption or ingestion) of heavy metals, organophosphates, and particulates. Generally, in cities, particulate exposure means byproducts on combustion (diesel exhaust is high on my personal list) and industrial process. Around agriculture production, you find exposure to pesticides and herbicides that contain heavy metals and organophosphates. Finally, I read oxidation and inflammation, suggesting the role of inadequate antioxidant intake (note for below, sulforaphane is a strong antioxidant).

How does all that get inside the body? Obviously breathing. Elsewhere, reviews find that human exposures to pollution is primarily a function of eating high on the food chain. I'm sure the vegan police in Wiki will prevent us from mentioning animal products. High on my personal to avoid list is farmed fish and chicken. Especially for pregnant women.

Anyway, gene variability among humans leaves some more vulnerable to ASD related gene expressions cause by those pollutants. Wiki makes it sound like it's mostly inherited genes, not gene expressions! The pollutants can also (in a subgroup) contribute to an "allergy" in the brain effecting Mast cells.

So finally, here's the question please. Last Oct, primary research strongly suggests sulforaphane can can reduce patient symptoms (dramatically in the slight majority).[[1]] The study ended at 18 weeks, though the kids were still trend improving). It's a gold standard study. Note, I do not promote supplements, rather the eating of raw broccoli (by far, chewed broccoli is the best natural source of sulforaphane). I'm here to help people, and I've other projects to attend, so if I can't include any of that study...none of this is worth it to me. Will you guys allow the inclusion of any of that study?

Note, most of the improved kids experienced a fever, which I read is commonly coincident with improved functionality (with almost all autistic kids, after a fever they improve temporarily). From that study they say, "fever can dramatically but temporarily ameliorate the disturbed behavior of many autistic patients". Primary research again, but fever is also associated with clonal antibody reset, which can be a marker for dramatically reduced allergy symptoms. Back to stuff I'd like to include, you'll find the authors speculate several other mechanisms (why they chose to test sulforaphane). Finally, sulforaphane (primary again) is utilized by the liver to aid in the remove pollutants. (Shapiro TA, Fahey JW, Wade KL, Stephenson KK, Talalay P. Chemoprotective glucosinolates and isothiocyanates of broccoli sprouts: metabolism and excretion in humans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 May;10(5):501-8.)(Nestle M. Broccoli sprouts as inducers of carcinogen-detoxifying enzyme systems: clinical, dietary, and policy implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Oct 14;94(21):11149-51.).32cllou (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, because nobody writes anything. I suggest "Risk Factors" instead of "Causes of Autism", because reviews suggest many interrelated risk factors.

Above I forgot being premature at birth. Having an immature blood brain and blood gut barrier may enable toxins to enter the body and brain.

What I'd suggest in Treatment (or existing Management) is to avoid particulates (especially nano) and exposure to environmental toxins. And, something like "Multiple research studies are investigating sulforaphane as a potential treatment for autism, because "its capacity to reverse abnormalities that have been associated with ASD, including oxidative stress and lower antioxidant capacity, depressed glutathione synthesis, reduced mitochondrial function and oxidative phosphorylation, increased lipid peroxidation, and neuroinflammmation." (not going to waste time writing without quotes at this point).

Please comment on the above sentence on sulforaphane in management or treatment.32cllou (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

CDC incidence "2014" or 2010

Published in 2014, but sample at age 8 taken in 2010; thus understates if rate has continued to rise. Also think it's important to note the higher rate in white boys.32cllou (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thesis results that I argue should be added to the Autism page

I propose that after the text: "The signs usually develop gradually, but some autistic children develop more normally at first and then regress." the following text should be added: "Recent research indicates that some of these cases of regression could be caused by malfunction or the down regulation of dipeptidyl peptidase DPP4 enzyme that is in charge of breaking down gliadorphins and casomorphin peptides (gluten and casein peptides) into amino acids for absorption, which ultimately causes leakage of unhydrolized peptides to the blood stream and hence, to the brain. These peptides are morphine agonists (so called “opioid peptides” or exorphins) and are believed to interact with opioid receptors and cause morphine like behaviour. GFCF dietary intervention has shown promising outcomes in terms of reduction in behavioural features, development in motor, cognitive, and language skills and reduction in symptoms of enterocolitis and atopy (dermatitis) in autistic individuals with symptoms of enterocolitis, gluten allergy and elevated levels of gluten and casein peptides."

My text was marked as "fringe" by someone that I believe has NOT read the thesis. This work is not "fringe". The thesis is well researched, based on with many authoritative citations, and is based on the detection of high levels of peptides in urine which should not be present, and which is reduced by the elimination of Gluten for those people. See also:

• Reichelt KL & Knivsberg AM (2002). Can the Pathophysiology of Autism be Explained by the Nature of the Discovered Urine Peptides? Nutritional Neuroscience, 2003 Vol. 6 (1), pp. 19–28.
• Reichelt KL & Knivsberg AM (2009), The possibility and probability of a gut‐to‐brain connection in autism. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry. 21(4):205‐11.)

which discloses that some individuals on the ASD spectrum were found to have higher than normal levels of exorphins (morphine agonists) which are unhydrolyzed gluten and casein proteins in their urine .

The above text is not saying that eliminating gluten is an all-around cure for Autism. In contrast, the thesis explains WHY the GFCF diet does NOT universally work to improve all cases of autism, and states how to identifies those cases of Autism that can be assisted. The above text i have proposed to add states that there is an important sub-category of people that have Autism in which severe regression occurs because of Gluten, and in which eliminating that gluten reverses that severe regression. Please READ the full content of the thesis before comment on its pro's and con's. Maybe this text should go some-where else on the page, which is fine.. But this thesis is important and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGittins (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an MA thesis meets MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You can only very rarely use primary research. Find a review of the literature, or better yet meta-analysis of all existing Pubmed and be careful how your present so there is no change in emphasis.

Thank you for doing my cite back there, I was going to be late for an appt helping an autistic boy ... who is already experiencing fever and reduced symptoms just two weeks into raw broccoli sprouts see http://www.pnas.org/content/111/43/15550.full . It's most likely caused by last trimester through early childhood gene expressions promoted by environmental toxins, especially nano. Heavy metals and particulates. Unfortunately, probably those expressions are not ongoing (like many once in childhood). Note, family history (gene talk) is mostly shared exposures impacting gene variability ... everyone in the family (esp mother) living close to a freeway or eating lots of farmed fish tho that last is my assumption. Some of the symptoms can be moderated by improved function (clear out some of those toxins?).32cllou (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That primary source, the PNAS one, is not of much use to us. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

32cllou, pls have a look at WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm happy the child is eating his vegetables, but that is an inappropriate use of article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That had already been deleted. Nice to have someone else actually write something. Much better to work together too. Found several more very recent reviews, but my library is closed for the holidays.32cllou (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good source; please do not continue to insert this text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Autistic children vs. children with autism

"Autistic children" is incorrect. Child/children with autism is correct. The disorder doesn't define the child. Have made changes to the article reflecting this. Incredible that this was a FA with such a glaring, repeated error throught the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Some within the autistic community prefer it the other way around per [2] Thus why how it was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And some within the autistic community prefer it the other way around. Especially those of us who are actually on the spectrum and/or understand people with autism outside of a textbook or medical journal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know. I am am one of the ones supporting "children with autism". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

32cllou, I have recently had to revert or revise most of your edits, and it would be helpful if you could review some pages.

1. This article is a Featured article. Please have a look at WP:OWN#Featured articles and discuss your edits on talk before making them. You have several times introduced the wrong citation format, less than optimal prose, and you have removed text about the genetic basis of autism.
2. Featured articles must maintain consistent citations; the citation format for this article is discussed above in Talk:Autism#Citation_format.
3. Autism is still thought to be highly heritable, and it is still unclear if the actual prevalence has increased, or diagnoses have increased. Please stop removing this material-- which is still accurate. Yes, it is good to use newer sources, and we should update the sources, but that information is still accurate, so we don't delete it just because the sources are old.
4. Your edit summaries and talk page entries indicate that you are placing a lot of stock in certain primary study findings. Please make sure your edits reflect secondary reviews. If you want to delete sourced text, please provide a recent broad high-quality autism review that justifies your deletion, and develop consensus on talk before deleting.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I only used one primary, and already said I won't use any in the future. Twice.
2. Better review due soon (govt). Triad says a review you approved. ~Inherited genes, environment impact on genes, physiological susceptibility (premature infants, for example), and impacts as with mitochondrial dysfunction, and mast cell "allergy".
3. Doc did a good job with the new information (adding particulates and heavy metals), and a great job re-writing the introduction (which was very poorly written prior).
4. I found the COI pages, so save your time for good.32cllou (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

The inclusion of "controversies" in Wikipedia articles is itself a controversial topic. However, when a significant controversy exists, it should be acknowledged in the article. To ignore it or dismiss it is to effectively render judgment, when society has not. The role of an encyclopedia, as I see it, is to report on "just the facts" not a version of those "facts" rendered by personal opinions.Landroo (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What, specifically, would you like included in the article? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an entire article (controversies in autism) which is linked in the second paragraph of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is the proper setting. "Controversy" should not be used in a FA, because it's an avenue to include propaganda not otherwise worthy (refuted in new reviews), or to effectively question a fact (sourced from a recent review, and not questioned or included in another recent review).32cllou (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Further reading

Not sure why these two books are in a further reading section?

• Julia Bascom (editor). Loud Hands: Autistic People, Speaking. Washington, DC: Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 2012. ISBN 978-1938800023
• Temple Grandin. Thinking in Pictures, Expanded Edition: My Life with Autism, New York, New York: Vintage, 2011. ISBN 978-1935274216

They are neiter broad in scope nor particularly notable looking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, as someone on the spectrum, it's my opinion the Temple Grandin book is definitely notable. Perhaps you don't know who she is? See Temple Grandin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Though Grandin is not an expert in the field, as far as I know. I have no idea about the other book, and I too question what they are there for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

From your perspective, Dbrodbeck, if she's not considered an expert in the field, why is she billed at speaking events and in various publications as an expert in regard to autism? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Does she do autism research? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Dbrodbeck, in an official "reseacher" capacity? I have no idea. Does she, as the holder of a scientific PhD, know how to conduct research? Most certainly. As an individual with autism, as the person who created the "squeeze machine" for herself (it went on to be a standard therapy tool for children and adults with autism), is she qualified to speak authoritatively to researchers and clinicians? Those researchers and clinicians seem to think so since her speaking engagements are typically sold out events. Does Dr. Tony Attwood, another expert in autism, think she's qualified as an expert? He does: "Temple is my hero. She has my vote for the person who has provided the greatest advance in our understanding of autism this century." (see here [3]). As someone who has written several scientific journal articles on autism (one such being the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology - see here: [4]), I'd say she qualifies as a researcher as well as an expert in autism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see what others think. That is a rather short report you linked to there, not, say, an exhaustive review. I have nothing personal against her, she has done very well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One need not specifically be a researcher in a particular field to be considered an expert. Experience and knowledge go a long way, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have restored both sources as they are considered notable in their field. Medical knowledge is not just about the stories physicians tell, but also the stories told by patients. Somewhere along the way, Doc James has lost sight of the NPOV policy. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Those books might be listed at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism; they don't belong in a broad overview of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree in regard to the Grandin book, SandyGeorgia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a fair compromise. These books are not broad in scope thus not really notable for this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Both books are broad in scope and they belong here, as both sources serve as a broad overview of the narrative medical approach to autism, which has nothing to do with the sociological and cultural aspects. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec x 5) Moved.[5] Please review WP:OWN#Featured articles and gain consensus before making changes. Grandin doesn't belong in a broad topic overview (and we can and do have much better sources than Attwood); Grandin does have various potential homes on Wikipedia, and I've added one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No one asked you to remove these sources, especially during this discussion, and there was no consensus reached to remove them. This is Wikipedia, not Sandypedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandy and Doc James, It was wrong to take these books out without more discussion. The Grandin book is important clinically in the treatment of those on the autism spectrum. From where else is the medical and therapeutic community to get insight on how those with autism think? Grandin's books have been some of the first to give a true picture of what it's like to live inside autism. A picture that "research" and medical books can never provide. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is required to make a controversial change. The addition of these two books is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a controversial change. You removed them with the criteria that they be "broad" and "notable". They are, and you were wrong. Therefore, your criteria for inclusion has been met. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Controversial" in what way? Keeping an important book about understanding autism from a notable expert on autism listed in "Further reading" is not what I would call controversial. If the book and the author were controversial I could understand your argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec x 4) Winkelvi this is backwards; please review WP:OWN#Featured articles, and please gain consensus before adding it again. Sociological and cultural aspects of autism is where those aspects are discussed; this article is broad overview, using summary style, with sub-articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A broad medical narrative from the patient's POV is neither sociological nor cultural. Just how do you think medicine works? Patients tell stories and physicians listen. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, I refuse to be drawn into article/talk page drama and accusations. I am working toward getting consensus, you are just reverting when there's a discussion already in progress. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these editions. Having a "Further reading" section on every article is optional but also attractive. These two books aren't really controversial. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger with Autism spectrum

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) 17:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion is here: Talk:Autism_spectrum#Merger_with_Autism Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the reference to the Autism rights movement & the See also section

Off-topic, violates WP:NOTAFORUM, talk page MOS and WP:TALK#USE

The notion of Autism as a medical condition is controversial. This is contested by the Autism rights movement, which is a movement headed by people in the Autistic spectrum that fights for the perception/definition of Autism as a normal variation without human neurodiversity. Doc James's removal of content related to the Autism rights movement and Autistic culture on articles dealing with Autism prevents access to essential information on Autism. The following content is content that you removed (which originated from the Autism rights movement article) and IMO is essential knowledge on articles involving Autism, Autism spectrum and Asperger Syndrome.ADeviloper (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Autism rights movement The rainbow-colored infinity symbol represents the diversity of the autism spectrum as well as the greater neurodiversity 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. The ARM advocates a variety of goals including a greater acceptance of autistic behaviors; therapies that teach autistic individuals coping skills rather than therapies focused on imitating behaviors of neurotypical peers; the creation of social networks and events that allow autistic people to socialize on their own terms; and the recognition of the autistic community as a minority group. 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. The movement is controversial. 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. Prominent figures Temple Grandin Ari Ne'eman John Elder Robison Alex Plank Michelle Dawson Donna Williams John Slegers Amanda Baggs Jim Sinclair Kevin Healey See also Autism spectrum Asperger syndrome Autism and memory Autism and working memory Global perceptions of autism Autistic culture Autism friendly Autism: The Musical Autistic art Sociological and cultural aspects of autism Asperger syndrome in popular culture Neurodiversity References References Pubmed articles Pubmed is a standard source for scientific articles in the medical community. Articles on Autism in the context of neurodiversity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311979 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22731976 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19142310 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22545843 This 2004 article, published in Nature, argues that Label of 'autism' could hold back gifted children: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15152222 Two more articles on the correlation of Autism and genius: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630121 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11916333 Articles arguing that intelligence is typically underestimated in individuals with Autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25308198 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17680932 —ADeviloper (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC) you are moving in the right direction, which is great. Thanks for that. Two things, please note the definition of "secondary source" in the "definitions" section of MEDRS and please see the "respect secondary sources" section of MEDRS. The way we write WP articles, is that we read the statements by major medical and scientific bodies and recent reviews (those are the two kinds of MEDRS-compliant secondary sources described in the definition) and summarize them here, giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT to the views expressed in the sources, according to the weight given in the sources themselves. That is what WP:NPOV calls us to do. We don't start with a strong POV or go looking for sources to make a pre-conceived point (which is called "cherry picking) -- doing that is WP:ADVOCACY (please read that - it is what you are doing). If you read the secondary sources on ASD and autism (which are cited in this article) you will see that as of now, the mainstream consensus is that autism and ASD are still considered to be developmental disorders. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC) As illustrated by the first four pubmed articles, there is no longer a consensus. And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. You imply consensus where there is none. —ADeviloper (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I don't think you read the definition I linked to above; none of the first 4 pubmed sources you cite is a secondary source. To see what recent secondary sources say, please read the many, many secondary sources cited in our article. And you are making another error - scientific consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. There will always be some dissenting voices. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC) How many dissenting voices are required before scientific consensus is no longer considered consensus? Consensus requires general acceptance. If there is no general acceptance within the scientific community, there is no scientific consensus. And yes, the pubmed articles aren't secondary sources. They're primary sources. —ADeviloper (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC) finally, I am done talking here, ADeviloper. You are not following the conventions for how we order discussions on the Talk page, and you are making strong arguments without understanding how WP works. When you begin following our conventions and you begin following WP's policies and guidelines (which you agree to do, every time you use Wikipedia, per the Terms of Use linked at the bottom of every page), I will engage with you again. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, let's clarify something, please. In regard to Asperger Syndrome and Autism being considered largely a "developmental disorder" - you are right in part. Neurological development disorder is more on target. Developmental disorder is a very broad net and isn't specific to ASDs. On to something important that I think is being lost in all of these discussions being started and continued at various autism-related article talk pages: let's not forget that WP:NOTAFORUM still applies. Which is what these discussions are becoming. Not about the articles and disputed content, but a place for ADeviloper to plead their case by turning the article talk pages into a forum/discussion atmosphere. I think this needs to be nipped in the bud and quelled ASAP. Let's hat all this and bring things back into focus: improving the article and building the encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I hear you, on the distinction you are drawing b/n neuroDD and DD. and i really hear you on WP:NOTFORUM. This thread has become so scrambled that it is unclear to me how to hat it, but you have my consent to that. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The notion that Autism is a disorder is notion that is harmful for many individuals within the Autistic community. This simple fact is not a matter of ideology. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia, this information should be included in articles on Autism. One more scientific source : https://soc.kuleuven.be/web/files/11/69/orteganeurodiversitybiosocieties.pdf —ADeviloper (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC) More sources https://soc.kuleuven.be/web/files/11/69/orteganeurodiversitybiosocieties.pdf http://emmashopebook.com/2014/06/17/an-argument-against-pathologizing-autism-what-others-had-to-say/ https://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/two-versions-of-pathologizing-normal/ http://autismmythbusters.com/general-public/famous-autistic-people/ http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/autistic-boy-genius-iq-higher-einstein-article-1.1340923 http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/21/aspergers-syndrome-is-it-just-another-way-of-pathologizing-creativity-and-genius-especially-male-creativity-and-genius-lets-get-on-our-tinfoil-hats/ http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=598 —ADeviloper (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I did not say that "the position of the Autism Rights Community is not a mainstream claim". This is a difficult conversation already but it is impossible if you don't actually respond to what others say. Please read WP:MEDRS, the guideline for sourcing health-related content in WP. If the consensus of the medical community changes and ASDs are no longer considered to be developmental disorders, you will find that consensus widely expressed in MEDRS-compliant sources. Not a single one of the sources you bring - not a single one - is a good source for health information per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I added some relevant pubmed articles —ADeviloper (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Comments Comment (Kind of) Right idea, (very) wrong execution, ADeviloper. For one thing, this content keeps saying "autistic people". If you truly are for "rights" you would know that "autistic" as an adjective is not an acceptable choice of nomenclature. Those of us on the spectrum are not defined by autism, therefore, we are individuals with autism, not "autistic people". Using that terminology is offensive to many of those on the spectrum (and their families). Such a basic error made over and over in the above makes me wonder what you're really about, what you're really trying to do here - what your agenda is. I wonder what your knowledge base is. From what I see above, you appear to be coming from a PR and/or activist standpoint rather than an educated standpoint. I see a lot of smoke but not much fire, more milk than meat. In other words, the above doesn't strike me as coming from someone who actually knows autism, either first hand or academically. In addition, there is the repeated re-insertion of the content without any real discussion here. That translates to WP:POINT in my mind. Also from my perspective, it looks like you're more about stirring the pot and furthering a personal agenda than trying to help build an encyclopedia (article). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Many people on the Autistic spectrum do not object to the term "Autistic people". Calling a person or group "Autistic" doesn't imply that the term "Autistic" defines that person or group at the individual level any morr than calling a person "female", "blind" or "gay" defines that person or group at the individual level. Just like being "female", being "blind" or being "gay" implies only a subset of attributes that can still vary significantly at the individual, so does the term "Autistic". —ADeviloper (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Regardless of your insistence, we don't like being defined by autism because we are much more than our autism. Activists like to define people and put them in labeled boxes because it justifies their activism, gives them a reason to continue their activism, allows them a certain degree of notoriety and power, and often is a means by which they carve out a living (financially). I don't know if any those actually describe you, but as a person who just wants to get better at living in the neurotypical world, your insistence that I must fit into one of your labeled boxes seems to me like activism disguised as advocacy and is insulting. Can we get past the activism and pointy-ness and just get back to productive and cooperative encyclopedia-building? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Labels are how scientists organised the complex universe we live in. Labels that are applied to us can be used to define and describe subsets of characteristics that make us who we are. Whether or not the label "Autism" applies to you, it doesn't define you as an individual. If it does apply to you, at best it describes a minority of characteristics that make you who you are as an individual. That still makes it a useful label, whether or not you like that label being applied to yourself. —ADeviloper (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Comment I have to go with WV on this one. If there is already an article, a short mention and wikilink does suffice, rather than replicate the entire article. If a section that has nothing to do with the syndrome *and* is a full repetition of another article has been removed, one talks first and acquires consensus. Many syndromes and diseases over the years have had rights advocacy groups form, we didn't include the article on their rights movement included verbatim on the disease page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC) AD(H), Autism, Dyslexia and various other "conditions" ARE normal parts of human neurodiversity. These "conditions" typically involve both extreme weaknesses and extreme strengths. Often, those weaknesses and strengths are closely related. For example, AD(H) and Autism are both associated with both the struggle to keep attention in some areas (a weakness) and the capacity to hyperfocus in other areas (a strength). Both people with AD(H) and people with Autism can learn to make the impact of their "condition" mostly beneficial by reducing the influence in their personal lives of areas where they struggle to keep attention and increasing the influence of areas where they can hyperfocus. Because these "conditions" are double-edged swords that involve both strengths and weaknesses, neither AD(H) nor Autism nor Dyslexia technically qualify as disabilities and this position should be mentioned explicitly as an alternative to the medical definition on not just the general Autism articles, but also articles on AD(H)D and Dyslexia. —ADeviloper (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The original posting is not accurate. ADeveliper added a list of leaders in ARM and a bunch of See Alsos in this set of diffs. Doc James reverted that, and only that, in this diff - Doc James did not remove the whole section. ADeviloper edit warred it back in this dif, and I just re-reverted in this diff. The current ARM section is a great example of WP:SUMMARY which is how we knit related articles together. The list of people is WP:UNDUE in this article. Also many of the See Also wikilinks violated WP:ELNO in that the wikilinks are already in this article. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (had an edit conflict with comments below - was fixing this mistake. See new comment below Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)) I added a reference to the Autistic Rights Movement AND a "See Also section". Doc James removed both. —ADeviloper (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) In my view this article and the Autism spectrum article are very related in concept but are poorly related here in WP. I don't know how that came to be. But it makes sense to me, to have the proposed content in the broader article, Autism spectrum, under the standard WP:MEDMOS heading of "Society and culture" and not mention it here at all. That is how it is now - see Autism_spectrum#Society_and_culture. That section is a great example of WP:SUMMARY (it is a copy/paste of the lead of the ARM article). The list of people and reams of ELs do not belong either of the main articles. That is WP:UNDUE - that kind of detail belongs in the main article for the ARM subject, Autism rights movement. Sorry for my earlier confused posting here. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC) As the notion of Autism as a disability is increasingly controversial, there should be a reference to the alternative position of Autism as a normal variation within human neurodiversity on general articles involving with Autism. To a increasing amount of individuals, the notion of Autism as a disability is as offensive and as incorrect as the notion of Homosexuality as a disability. —ADeviloper (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs and is not a soapbox. We describe the world as it is, as it is described in mainstream reliable sources, and for health-related content, those sources are defined in WP:MEDRS. As of now, ASD is a considered by mainstream medicine to be a developmental disorder. It is reasonable to appropriately mention the social movement that seeks to change that. As I wrote above I think it makes sense to keep the section that is currently in the ASD article. fwiw, if you try to force a ton of content about the ARM into all the related articles you are going to get topic banned for being disruptive; i recommend that you listen to the community. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC) In the past, homosexuality was described as a mental condition in reliable mainstream sources. This notion of homosexuality as a medical condition has never been scientifically been debunked. Instead, there's been a cultural shift towards acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality. The goal of the Autism Rights Movement is to achieve a similar cultural shift for the perception of Autism as a mental condition. The arguments in favor of this shift are at least as strong as the arguments favoring the rejection of the notion that homosexuality is a disorder. —ADeviloper (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I understand the story of how homosexuality has been treated and so does every one here. What you are not understanding, is that had Wikipedia existed before homosexuality itself was de-listed as a disorder, Wikipedia would have described homosexuality as a disorder. That is what we do here. We follow mainstream sources; we describe the world as it is represented by mainstream sources; we are not here to change the world. As I mentioned above, if you continue trying to use WP to change the world, you will establish a clear pattern that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, and you will be topic banned from autism topics, or you will be banned altogether. You will do as you will. But stop beating the dead horse of the parallel with homosexuality; as I said everybody here knows that story. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The claim that the position of the Autism Rights Community is not a mainstream claim and therefore doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is itself a very subjective and — IMO — inaccurate statement. What's the threshold for the Autism Rights Community to reach before it is considered as a mainstream movement? At what point does the non-medical definition become mainstream? What evidence would be considered as valid evidence for the non-medical definition of Autism? —ADeviloper (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I added several additional sources —ADeviloper (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Further reading

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.

---

The autism article was listed at FAC in 2007. Eight years have passed and the article is due for a featured article review as much has changed. Since that time, at least two notable books have been published and "canonized" in the autism literature. These include Temple Grandin's Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism (2011) and Julia Bascom's Loud Hands: Autistic People, Speaking (2012).

A dispute over adding these two sources to a further reading section has arisen. Four questions have been raised about including these sources:

1. Are they notable?
2. Are they broad in scope?
3. Are they controversial?
4. Is there consensus for inclusion?

This RfC is intended to solve these questions. Both sources are about people living with autism, and directly inform a narrative medical approach to understanding the condition. The unstated counterargument is that these sources may not meet WP:MEDRS, however, MEDRS does not rule out their use. The question remains: should the books by Grandin and Bascom be added to the further reading section? Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

On the discussion leading to RFC:

• 1. Red herring: Viriditas said: The unstated counterargument is that these sources may not meet WP:MEDRS, however, MEDRS does not rule out their use. There has been no mention of WP:MEDRS anywhere in the discussion of the addition of two books to Further reading.
  2. Please comment on content, not contributors: [6] [7] (Who is the all referred to?)
  3. {{Recruiting}}: It is curious that four editors (who had never before edited this article or talk page) appeared (before this RFC), wanting to add these two books, only.

As to the merits of the two books:

• Amazon.com lists over 40,000 books on autism; Worldcat lists 19,000. There are scores of very fine books on autism. Shall we add all of them?
• This is a broad overview article that uses summary style and depends on a series of sub-articles, any number of which might be a home for these two books. What is the specific reason for adding these two particular books when there are tens of thousands of books on autism?
• The two proposed books were added to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, a sub-article. There are others where they might be added, but the same argument applies there: with tens of thousands of fine books about autism, what motivates the need for these two?

As to the mention of the need for a FAR, no deficiencies in FA status were noted. The article has been continuously maintained and updated by multiple editors since it passed FAC.

• Oppose addition. In a broad overview article, singling out these two books (of limited scope) for addition opens the door to overuse of the Further reading section; there are literally thousands of books that do a fine job of describing many aspects of autism, and there is no reason to single out these two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am happy to directly address, refute, and counter your points: 1) "unstated" is defined as "not stated or declared", which is why it has not been mentioned. It was mentioned as a possible counterargument in parallel to questions about the notability and broad scope of the sources, questions which are directly related to reliable source issues, of which MEDRS is relevant. This is the opposite of a red herring, and on point. 2) ironically, your second point is a red herring as it has nothing to do with this RfC. Thanks for giving us an example so I don't have to define it for you. 3) yet another red herring that has nothing to do with this RfC. There is no evidence of any recruiting whatsoever, and the only way you will find such evidence is if you invent it. 4) you did not address the merits of the books in any way, you ignored them. You would need to address the material itself and its use in reliable sources. 5) these are the two most important books about people with autism written from their perspective. Other stuff exists; we are not taking about other books. 6) the two proposed books were added to other articles by you without any consensus. You seem to think that only you are allowed to add books to further reading sections of your choice, but nobody else is allowed. Sorry, but you have to follow consensus just like everybody else. 7) a featured article review is needed because the article is outdated. The removal of newer sources on this subject is only one example of the problem. 8) several reasons to prefer these two books was given in the RfC. You can't ignore it and say no reason was given. Other books exist; we are not required to address your appeal to unknown evidence. You have not addressed these books, nor have you given a single reason why they can't be added to this article. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per MEDMOS, the logical place for Temple Grandin (as a notable person with autism) is the Sociological and cultural aspects article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Equally "per MEDMOS", the place for a carefully selected list of books that readers might be interested in is under ==Further reading==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Correct on the "carefully selected list", which this is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Both books are valuable to the discussion on autism, the Grandin book, especially, is known as an important work and resource for those researching autism. The majority of people coming here are not going to be medical, clinical, or therapeutic professionals as they already have their resources for understanding autism. Those coming to this article are likely to be laypersons: parents of children with autism, family members, students, and those on the spectrum themselves. Both of these books are good resources for such readership. You cannot get better perspective regarding ASDs than from those who actually are on the autism spectrum. A noted academic with a scientific PhD, Grandin, in particular, is a known and respected author and speaker. She has received accolades from medical professionals and experts in autism for her books and journal articles regarding her life perspective as someone on the autism spectrum. To exclude her work(s) from the Further reading list in this article defies logic. This isn't an article in a medical journal, it's an article in an encyclopedia where all types of readers will come, look for usable information, and hopefully get some answers. To exclude a book on autism that has been heralded by countless individuals (including physicians, clinicians, therapists, and those who have family members with autism) and groups dedicated to autism education and activism is a wrong-headed omission, in my view. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There are multiple notable individuals with autism; see MEDMOS on notable individuals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose So why these two books among the thousands that are available? They deal with just one narrow aspect of autism, person experience. One book is simple one person's experience with the condition. They do not deal with the condition more broadly. I see them as okay for the sub article mentioned. We additionally deal with a fair number of people attempting to promote their own books via Wikipedia. Thus we need to keep the bar high before inclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Was it ever the question as to why these two books are being included over others, Doc James? I don't think so. The list was two books, both removed under the premise of neither being important or notable. The question was, "why have them in the list?" -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reminder: an RfC is designed for the sole purpose of soliciting outside input into entrenched discussions. We already know the positions of the above editors from the previous discussion on this same topic. Anyone closing this discussion in the future should take this into account. This discussion requires the input of editors who have not already participated in this dispute. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oops. Sorry. Should I strike my comments, Viriditas? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  No, leave them. The RfC process is poorly described, so this problem occurs all the time. But all entrenched parties should allow space for new input from outside parties, and if necessary, the RfC can be neutrally and appropriately advertised in other projects, boards, or talk pages to increase the odds of new input. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, RFCs are requests for comment, not solely requests for comments from outside editors. It would be more precise to say that the "primary purpose" is to get outside comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not here There are lots of places on-wiki where these books can be listed. Putting it here is controversial and putting it elsewhere would not be. Put it in the most natural and least controversial place first, and if it happens after time that these books seem to be prominent above others and merit inclusion in the limited space available here, then the issue can be revisited after these are grouped with other books and all are considered for inclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why is it controversial? I keep seeing this claim, but no support for it. What is controversial about these proposed additions? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas The "further reading" section should be a listing of either highly relevant books or books with the same scope as Wikipedia. The two books proposed are incidental accounts. It is not established that of all books in the world, these are of broadest interest. So far as I know, these are also the only two books in the entire world which have ever been considered, so it is controversial to include them with no diligence in comparing them to alternatives. I personally do not expect that these books could stand against modest competition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I just added some books that seem more appropriate to me. I saw your claim on the systemic bias board. All of these have women authors and one has a forward by Grandin. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please maintain a consistent citation style, per WP:CITEVAR and the requirement for Featured articles. A 2008 Further reading entry on Assessment is too old for a Featured article; some 2008 sources will still be accurate, but a book published in 2008 would reflect research and thinking that would now be about ten years old. And although I have left it for now, I am familiar with Mitzi Waltz's writing on Tourette syndrome, and we can do much better than that.[8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The books appear to be very narrow in scope and aren't particularly noteworthy compared to all of the other potential material out there. For a topic like this, something broader in scope would have a place in Further Reading. They seem to be sources better suited for a specific piece of content instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm opposing weakly because I don't see huge harm in having the books linked, but they do seem to be narrow in scope. For example, it seems Temple Grandin is notable for being so remarkably accomplished, and I'm not sure a book from her speaks to the broad topic/experience of autism with respect to this article. It does sound like an interesting book, so I don't see a huge problem with it and the similar books being linked here, but it seems linking multiple books from notably accomplished autistic individuals could be argued to be giving undue weight to high functioning autism. It seems such books would probably be better linked on other related autism pages.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See MEDMOS on notable cases: the logical place for Temple Grandin (as a notable person with autism) is the Sociological and cultural aspects article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support at least one (I don't care which one)—if we're going to have such a section at all, that is (I have no opinion on that point). As background, I should probably say that I've worked on WP:FURTHER and WP:Further reading. Putting something "narrow" or from one POV is completely appropriate to such a section. I'm also not buying the slippery slope argument. There may be thousands in print, but we can still pick one or two. The goal of a ==Further reading== section is to provide a short list of interesting, iconic, or important books. They do not need to be "reliable". They do not need to be "general" (which, given the people here, I suspect sometimes means "medical" rather than actually "general"). In fact, a really well-constructed section might deliberately include all of the significant POVs, and two or three reading levels. One book each from the POVs of a teacher, a person with autism, a parent, and a medical expert would be a good mix. Some of these could be accessible to average teenagers and others could be technical. Some of these could focus on high-functioning and others on low-functioning aspects. The goal for a ==Further reading== section is similar to the goal of a library: you want the library to be balanced, rather than each individual book to be balanced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I second this Support. Since the article did not previously include a ==Further reading== section, and no other books have been proposed, the real question seems to be whether to have such a section at all. Wikipedia is not paper, so it has room for such sections, and they do not distract readers from the rest of the articles they contain, since they are in separate sections (as opposed to the suggestion below of adding content specifically to create an excuse to cite these sources). Thus, the only downside I see is the burden on any editor who is trying to protect the quality of the entire article and therefore feels obliged to personally read all books listed or ever proposed. Theoretically, no editor should individually bear such a burden, but it might happen in practice; if that's the issue, say so. Langchri (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Doc James. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• oppose "keep the bar high"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• I came to this RfC from the note that Viriditas left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and I otherwise do not watch this page. I oppose the presentation of these sources as a further reading section, without context, per the comments above about MEDRS. However, I see no problem with adding a short paragraph at the end of the History section of the page, describing the increase in popular writing about the disease in the past however-many years, and citing these two sources there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• A wonderful option. I would encourage supporters to consider implementing this idea, as one could conceivably argue that it is superior to having a further reading section in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Are we deciding which works to include in Further reading now, based on them being written by women? A short sentence at the end of History would be a good addition, but it would not necessarily mention these two authors, just because they are women. Again, there are thousands of books and hundreds of authors on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sandy: In no way is my suggestion about a short addition at the end of the History section about gender, nor, for that matter, limited to these two authors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't think you were (suggesting that), Tryptofish; I know you better than that :) It was a general question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The insistence by some commenters here that publications listed under "Further reading" should comply with MEDRS is a red herring. To accept such a position would imply that absolutely every single moment and aspect of the existence of every single person on the autism spectrum is a medical issue, It is an extremely narrow and excessively strict application of the medical model. People with autism are not medical laboratory specimens, they are human beings who live most of their lives outside of hospitals and doctors' offices. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you read the discussion? MEDRS was not raised in the discussion as a reason for opposing the additions. If Grandin were to be used as a source, WP:SPS would apply, and then WP:MEDRS would apply to medical claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The applicability of MEDRS is raised in the opening statement as an example of a predictable counterargument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Dodger67 said: The insistence by some commenters here that publications listed under "Further reading" should comply with MEDRS ..., when in fact the actual mention of MEDRS was a strawman in the opening statement. If the proposal had been to use self-published works as sources, then WP:SPS would apply, and WP:MEDRS might apply, depending on the content sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are lots descriptions of life with Autism-spectrum-disorder one could add, should everyone add their favorite? I like The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time myself. I'm curious, the intro to the RfC says these two have been "cannonized": Who says that, and with what evidence? If someone found a 3rd party reference, like a review article that mentioned one of these books as a good example, then we could mention it in prose in a section on "life with autism" or something. BakerStMD T|C 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but we are not talking about adding links to fiction works, but to non-fiction medical narratives about people with autism. Do you understand the difference? As for these works being cannonized, they are repeatedly referred to in the literature (peer-reviewed and otherwise) as important works. If you can point to other related (not fictional) works that have received as much coverage in the autism community and as much coverage in the literature, please name them. As others have mentioned above, the experience of people with autism is an important part of this topic. Demanding that we only cover one aspect of this topic is a violation of WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Opppose until sources are provided. We are told at the top of this RfC that these two particular books have been 'canonized' in the literature; the claim is repeated above that these two particular books "...are repeatedly referred to in the literature (peer-reviewed and otherwise) as important works." This RfC has been running for a couple of days, and it looks like the question was raised in the thread above a couple of days before that. So where are all these sources in the literature (especially the peer-reviewed literature) which are so specifically effusive in their endorsement of these two works above all others on the topic? Are these two books genuinely singled out as truly, uniquely, remarkable in the field? Or are they just relatively recent and relatively popular works?
  I'm not sure that I would support a "further reading" section like this on a top-level summary article anyway—the arguments above that such sections are better placed, if at all, on more specific sub-articles have merit. But if we are to include such a section in this article particularly, it behooves us to base that decision on impeccable-bordering-on-unimpeachable sources, rather than on gut feelings and unsupported assertions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per MEDMOS, the logical place for Temple Grandin (as a notable person with autism) is the Sociological and cultural aspects article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Doc James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 03:45, February 1, 2015‎

• Oppose per Doc James and TenOfAllTrades. DaveSeidel (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per Doc James and Kingofaces43. While I recognize the value of a narrative medical approach in a variety of areas, and particularly in articles on topics such as Autism, I have to agree that these two examples appear neither notable enough or broad enough to merit their inclusion in the article. If sources supporting their importance (relative to other literature available) are provided, I would be persuaded to include them. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kingofaces43 and TenOfAllTrades. Even after that, they'd be more appropriate for a sub-article, not the main one. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Summoned va WP:FRS; please {{Ping|coldacid}} if you respond to my comment.

• Oppose - as this article is an FA, if there's something in the books that is significant and not mentioned in the article, the books should not be in the further reading section; they should be in the citations and supporting the material that is not currently covered in the article text. If the books fail WP:MEDRS, they shouldn't be in the further reading section at all IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

autistic girls

I believe that somehow we are missing the point that autism may be underdiagnosed in girls. Fact is, there may be more girls with autism than we may think. Autism has different symptoms for girls than boys. The article on autism should reflect that. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we only typically use high quality secondary sources. This is not that good of a source [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a complicated discussion. Will add something with a better source to the epidemiology section

This says "Many studies document the higher prevalence of ASD in boys than in girls. One contributing factor may be an influence of gender on diagnosis. Some studies report more severe social and communication impairment in girls than in boys (Hartley and Sikora, 2009 ), but girls may be more encouraged and trained to behave socially by their environment, possibly leading to some mildly affected girls going unrecognized. Moreover, the gendered social environment is different between the sexes, which may lead to perception of the same social deficit being categorized as shy in girls and unresponsive in boys, contributing to the diagnostic bias towards males ( Goldman, 2013 ). Additionally, the tests used to diagnose an individual may be biased towards the male specific pathophenotype, and may not include the aspects necessary to diagnose a girl with a mild form of ASD. Moreover, because of the awareness of the sex bias in ASD incidence, ASD is interpreted as a male disorder ( Baron-Cohen, 2002 ), making it more likely for clinicians to diagnose boys with the disorder, as they are a risk group, than girls. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24705124

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with this source? Was it primary reference? Tell me, please. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No evidence it is peer reviewed and published by a high impact journal. Not pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rubella vaccination

Doc James undid my addition that rubella vaccination would prevent only "a small minority" of autism cases because "ref did not support." The BMC reference I added states: These results demonstrate that the CRS-ASD association is not trivial, though the prevented cases represent only a small fraction of current ASD prevalence. This is the same estimate cited by The Lancet paper. Congenital rubella syndrome causes <1% of autism cases, so "some" is a bit misleading. KateWishing (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lancet review states "Those that survive the neonatal period can face serious developmental disabilities (eg, visual and hearing impairments) and have an increased risk of developmental delay, including autism. In fact, rubella is and should be regarded as a vaccine-preventable cause of autism" This is a primary source [10] and thus we should summarize the secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The sole source for The Lancet's statement that "rubella is and should be regarded as a vaccine-preventable cause of autism" is the paper I added. Citing the original source simply provides more context. WP:MEDRS does not forbid primary sources, and this is absolutely a case where one is appropriate. Regardless, if you will not agree to that, we could use a different secondary source before that sentence to establish the minority status of rubella-induced autism, e.g. "The association between congenital rubella infection and autism was initially reported as early as 1971; however, more recent data reveal that congenital rubella infection is present in only 0.75% of autistic populations, although this percentage has likely diminished with widespread usage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in Western countries." (Duchan & Patel, 2014 review) KateWishing (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure added this second source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. KateWishing (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Intense world" theory

No mention of the "intense world" theory is found anywhere on the current autism entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afm2105 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes link to autism

A new study if the authors wish to include these articles as a reference in the Epidemology or Causes section. The article's warning notice recommended people discuss topics in the talk page, instead of editing the article.

Pregnancy-Related Diabetes Has Possible Link to Autism http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-related-diabetes-has-possible-link-to-autism

Study: Association of Maternal Diabetes With Autism in Offspring http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2247143 Jcardazzi (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Thanks, Jcardazzi, but that is a primary study, unexamined by secondary sources (see WP:MEDRS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS). An important paragraph in that report begins with "We acknowledge some important limitations ..." Besides the typical problems with unreviewed primary studies, in another similar condition (Tourette syndrome), I'm well familiar with all of the ascertainment bias and other issues that occur in these sorts of examinations of Kaiser Permanente data. If the association between diabetes and autism has some credence, secondary reviews will discuss it and place it in context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorge, I did not know the JAMA article was not peer reviewed. I did read in the paragraph you cited "Because this is an observational study, no causal inferences can be drawn." "However, our results suggest that early screening for ASD in offspring of women with GDM diagnosed by 26 weeks’ gestation may be warranted. Our results also suggest that screening for GDM and control of glucose levels early in pregnancy may be important in reducing ASD risk for offspring. Whether early diagnosis and treatment of GDM can reduce the risk of ASD remains to be determined."Jcardazzi (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

peer review is not what Sandy is talking about. please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions and the definition of "secondary" there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

History

The Internet also helped many people understand autism and the autism spectrum better, although incorrect articles have also hurt some of the public. The media has begun to portray autism in a better light (despite the recent and continued controversy over vaccinations). The media has depicted special talents of some children with autism. These include the ability to play music without being taught and exceptional memory or math skills as seen in the movie Rain Man . It is important to note that this movie depicts a savant and not your typical autistic person. While some savants are autistic, and vice-versa no direct correlation has been proven.

References

References:

Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (2014). Abnormal Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. p. 292. ISBN 978-0-07-803538-8.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanthony007 (talk • contribs) 3:29, April 20, 2015‎

Hi, Nanthony007. Please sign your entries on talk pages by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.[11] I have corrected your section heading to start a new talk section to discuss History (which is not related to the diabetes section above it).[12]

I am hoping that you noticed this message which came up when you made your edit; it explains editing of Featured articles on Wikipedia and has some helpful links. While it was good that you proposed your edit here on talk, if you could wait longer than eight minutes before also inserting the text, you might have gotten a response from other editors.

I made these corrections to your addition and moved the text to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, where the text better fits in "Media portrayal".[13] This is a broad overview article, which uses summary style. If you would like to review the changes I made to your text, and the reasons, you can start here and click Next edit to step through all the changes. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

location of content about vaccines

Al-Andalus moved the vaccine content in the Causes section from the end of that section to the beginning, in this dif. I reverted, as this seems worthy of discussion. I also think that we should perhaps add a "Society and culture" section (per WP:MEDMOS) and put this content there, as this content is not about an actual cause of autism... thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The diagnostic criteria

As far as I can tell, this change (resulting from edits by three different editors) is incorrect. Repetitive and restricted behaviors are part of the diagnosis, and required for it. Has that changed? It was my understanding that it is the severity issue that changed, not the requirement. Can is incorrect here: they are. I am not sure the wording is yet optimal, but we should hammer this out on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong. The criteria has changed, is much more broad (since Asperger's is now just Autism) and "can" is a more appropriate, less restrictive wording. Further, there is nothing wrong with changing up the reference to those with autism to be "individuals with autism" rather than "autistic individuals". Doing so will be more inclusive of those who prefer to be referred to first as people rather than by their diagnosis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any issue or preference on "individuals with autism" v. "autistic individuals", but I will note (after years in here), that no matter what we use, someone claiming to be an advocate for people with autism will change it, and they don't all agree. No, what I am raising is the matter of what language we use when something is part of the diagnosis (which repetitive and restricted interests are, but under DSM5 it is severity that varies). We need to better wordsmith that part ... in fact, the intro to that whole section could use work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't have any issue with it, yet you changed the entire edit, rather than just the word "can" (which you say was your concern). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to nitpick, I have other things to do. As I said, that particular wording has changed back and forth and back and forth and back and forth more times than I can remember, and it will change again. If you are interested, we can discuss the substance of the diagnosis. If not, I can go do something else. (In fact, I was a bit more troubled that three editors changed the article after someone introduced a typo, and didn't bother to check, so ... what else was in there?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nitpicking is something those of us who actually have autism do. Protesting when an editor blanket reverts an editor with whom they've had disagreements in the past is something Wikipedians do. My OP in this thread did discuss the substance of the diagnosis. Nonetheless, if you don't have time to put up with the "nitpicking" of an individual with ASD, perhaps you don't truly understand ASDs and shouldn't be editing the article? Just a thought. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be delighted if you (or anyone here) would apply nitpicking, and anything else, to reviewing for errors introduced so I don't have to go back and do that (again, three editors overlooked an issue introduced,[14] so all things considered, I went back ... now, please discuss).

And since you are personalizing and making a distinction in this discussion between NTs and others, you might also recognize that not all NTs perseverate enough to divide other editors into those they have or haven't had previous disagreements with. Meaning, disagreements with you don't stand out in my memory, sorry. I was concerned about SNUGGUMS, though, since s/he does stand out in my memory, as s/he has been so helpful elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are these sources good enough for inclusion?

http://www.molecularautism.com/content/2/1/15/abstract (facial features)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926922 (lungs)

They got removed, just want to confirm. Ylevental (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No these are two primary studies. We should be using review articles per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, where can I find good review articles? I don't want to keep making mistakes Ylevental (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this good? http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/in-brief/2012/clinical-research-children-with-autism-have-abnormal-airways Ylevental (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This would contain some [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any for my purpose. I don't know if I can ask you since you're really experienced, but maybe you could find them for me. Ylevental (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you looking for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Review articles for the links I gave you: http://www.molecularautism.com/content/2/1/15/abstract and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926922 Ylevental (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not how review articles work. Much prior primary research is not picked up by reviews as it is not sufficiently notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I have little experience, but http://www.molecularautism.com/content/2/1/15/abstract is "Highly Accessed" and is in a journal with an impact factor of 5.49 Ylevental (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ylevental The two sources that you want to bring are "PRIMARY" sources as defined in MEDRS here. Per WP:MEDREV (and in indeed all content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY, and the other content guideline, WP:RS) all content should be based on SECONDARY sources. For articles about health, that means a literature review article published in the biomedical literature. here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources - is a page of links to find use-able sources for health-related content. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Doc James I have no idea how to find the appropriate articles. Hopefully you will put in the effort to find them and if you can't then I guess I must wait a few years. |Ylevental]] (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ylevental the best way to write Wikipedia articles is to find very high quality secondary sources. Than allow those sources to determine what you add to Wikipedia. It is not a very good idea to come up with the content you wish to add and than trying to find sources that support that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Classification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Classification This all relates to DSM-IV. DSM5 does not have the same 7 pervasive disorders... PDD-NOS, Aspergers, Autism are all now Autism. This section needs a major rewrite. Garrie 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

New content

This was added "In some cases individuals with autism can have catatonic-like detoriation in skills and sometimes they can have autistic catatonia, but it is a rare condition. Autistic catatonia differs from classic catatonia in a number of ways."

I think it is undue weight for the lead. The first ref is a small primary source from 2000. The second is a blog. The symptoms is rare. The discussion should be in the body and with better refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --Jhertel (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me Autism Speaks isn't being referenced as a source for Autism. 13:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Moved here

"It is a difficult disorder to define because cases differ so greatly; however, there are some commonalities. For example, in almost all cases, the disorder is apparent before the age of 3 and does not increase in severity after that age. "

We already say much of this in the lead. For example the next sentence says "Parents usually notice signs in the first two years of their child's life."

Same with "It is considered a heterogeneous disorder in the sense that afflicted individuals may be severely impaired in some respect but may be normal, or even superior, in others. "

We state "Autism is a highly variable neurodevelopmental disorder" in the sentence before. So trimmed these additions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

"for example, the vaccine hypotheses have been disproven"

Exactly how, according to this editor, have the vaccine hypotheses have been disproven?

I do not believe that such a claim could be scientifically justified. I am going to change the language to reflect this. If you revert the change, please provide full justification of the claim that the vaccine hypotheses have been disproven. ---Dagme (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead doesn't need to be cited, but the statement to which it corresponds in the body does. Autism#Causes - last paragraph. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Low birth weight and preterm birth

Is there a reason that low birth weight and/or preterm birth are not noted in the article as possible causes of autism? This information might have been in this article before, but was removed due to poor sourcing and/or insufficient evidence. There are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that list low birth weight and/or preterm birth as possible causes of autism. For example, the following sources:

• This 2012 Autism Spectrum Disorders: Practical Overview For Pediatricians, An Issue of Pediatric Clinics source from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 87. While that source, including that page, emphasizes autism spectrum disorder (ASD: Autism spectrum#Classification) more so than what is considered "classic autism," it also states, "Other studies have shown similar associations between low birth weight and preterm delivery and the later development of autism."

• This 2013 Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity 2013 source, from Academic Press, page 249, states, "Prenatal risk factors for autism include infant hypoxia during delivery, cesarean section delivery, lower birth weight at full term delivery, and low Apgar scores at birth (Hultman et al., 2002; Larsson et al., 2005)."

• And, as for older research, this 2013 Neurobiological Issues in Autism Current Issues in Autism source from Springer Science & Business Media is a reprint of a 1987 source. On page 186, it states, "For many years it was generally believed that most low-birth weight infants either were born prematurely or were abnormal. However, there have been many recent reports of low incidents of handicaps (10% or less) among very-low-birth-weight survivors cared for with methods designed to prevent handicaps. Nevertheless, the relationship between low birth weight and autism has been investigated . Two of these studies (Deykin & MacMahon, 1980; Finegan & Quarrington, 1979) observed a similarly low incidence of low birth weight in both the autistic and the sibling group (Table 1)."

On the other hand, this 2009 Child Neuropsychology: Assessment and Interventions for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 2nd Edition source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 253, states, "Low birth weight (defined as less than 2,5000 g) was not associated with an increased risk of autism." And this 2011 Textbook of Autism Spectrum Disorders source, from the American Psychiatric Pub, pages 242-243, states, "However, study results suggest that low birth weight per se is not likely associated with increased risk of autism. Although low birth weight was examined in six epidemiological studies (Eaton et al. 2001; Glasson et al. 2004; Hultman et al. 2002; Larsson et al. 2005; Maimburg and Vaeth 2006; Schendel and Bhasin 2008), only two studies (Maimburg and Vaeth 2006; Schendel and Bhasin 2008) found it to be associated with increased risk of autism after other potential risk factors were controlled for. Schendel and Bhasin (2008) suggested a stronger association in females." Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No one has any thoughts on this? About whether or not we should note that a few studies indicate that low birth weight and/or preterm birth are possible causes of autism, but that these causes are not considered "high risk" for autism, and/or that the research on these matters is not strong? Given that medical and news sites commonly list or report premature babies and/or low-birth-weight babies being at a higher risk of autism, as seen here and here, I feel that we should note something in this article about these aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ack! not "causing", please. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean you'd prefer we don't use that word for this material or for similar material? If so, I'm fine with us not using it since I think I know what you mean with regard to "causes." So do you think we should mention anything in this article about these two topics? After all, the Causes section currently includes poorly supported claims/theories (by "poorly supported," I mean the evidence, not the sources). The low birth weight and preterm birth aspects are more supported than a number of those claims/theories. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Education

I would like to go more in depth discussing the education of children with autism and possibly create a new section within this article. I would argue that it is an incredibly important topic as it is critical to the development of a child with autism. There is also very little in depth information that is discussed on Wikipedia that is specific to the effectiveness of the education system for autistic children, the policies that affect their education, as well as how the teaching methods have progressed over time; however, there is a large amount of peer reviewed articles discussing these matters. Jmarrs94 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jmarrs94, yes, per WP:MEDMOS#Sections, this article could use a good Society and culture section. It could start with a WP:Summary style addition of the Sociological and cultural aspects of autism article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I apologize for my late response. So would you suggest that I add the "Society and Culture" section with a short summary of the Sociological and cultural aspects of autism article, and then a discussion on the education portion I will be doing? Jmarrs94 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Jmarrs94, no need to apologize or to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it's on my WP:Watchlist. But, yes, adding a "Society and culture" section with an appropriate-sized summary of the Sociological and cultural aspects of autism article, which can consist of four or more paragraphs if needed, and having your education material go there in that section, is a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to my proposal for the contributions I plan to make https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I11ffeI830ETBC-0DfhHQ6kUpxFliT07QTNc2bQc_7k/edit?usp=sharing if you would like to read over it. I do not have much on the summary of the sociological and cultural aspects of autism, however, I outline what I plan to add for the information on education. Later tonight, I plan on posting a more detailed description of what I plan to contribute. Jmarrs94 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In my initial contribution to the autism article, I will create a new section called “Society and Culture.” Within this section, I will first discuss a brief summary of the “sociological and cultural aspects of autism” article and then a short discussion on the importance of education for autistics. Then I will go into a subsection called “Education” and within this I will discuss the disadvantages, current methods, and Policy.

For the sociological and cultural aspects of autism summary, I will use much of the information and resources in the original article to discuss how the inability to properly communicate is detrimental to the lives of autistics, the differences in gender, the autism rights movement, and education. For the differences in gender, I plan to discuss how women face the issues of autism differently than men. In the discussion on autism rights movement, I plan to give a brief overview of the ideas associated with this, such as the attempt to designate autism as a difference instead of a disease . For the intro into education, I will discuss the factors that interfere with an autistic’s ability to receive a proper education and how this can affect their livelihood .

To begin the education subsection, I will discuss the disadvantages of the special education system. I will discuss how many autistic children are less active in classrooms, the lack of inclusion of autistic children, the lack of special education teachers, and the lack of resources to properly address the needs of all the autistic children . When discussing current methods, I will focus first on general strategies such as priming, prompt delivery, picture schedules, peer tutoring, and cooperative learning . After this, I will discuss more formalized methods such as LEAP, TEACHH, and NMS and discuss their effectiveness . I would also like to show how special education for autistics has evolved over the years to allow for more inclusivity . To end the education section, I will discuss policy, both in the US as well as other countries. For the US, I will focus on the No Child Left Behind Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. For other countries, I will first discuss Mexico and the education law passed in 1993 that called for inclusion of those with disabilities . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarrs94 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 and Jmarrs94, I agree that a society and culture section would generally be a good idea for this article. However, this proposal relates specifically to education. Society and culture are much broader categories, and not specifically about treatment of autism, of which education is one key critical component. I therefore don't think that the education material should be put into a society and cultural section. To the extent that education is critical to the treatment of autism, it should have its own section.DStrassmann (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DStrassmann, I feel that the education material should be part of the Society and culture section since it is an aspect of society and culture; it could even be a subsection of that section if needed. But I await other opinions on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DStrassmann asked me to comment here, so I have a few thoughts. I can understand Flyer22's argument for placing education under society and culture, given that is how one might generally place them in a taxonomy. Were this an article about a country I could easily be convinced education falls under society and culture, but I think an article about a particular subject should be organized with respect to that subject. In this case there are distinct connections between Autism and society, culture and education. Education is deeply linked with treatment, not as a subset of our cultural response to the disorder alone. We could break up the work on education and include some elements in society and culture, but the most of the proposed addition would be better suited in an education section. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record: Jmarrs94 added education material to the article. Doc James cut the material and moved it to the Autism therapies article, as seen here and here. He left the education material that is already there in the article, and gave it an Education subheading. DStrassmann and Adam (Wiki Ed), I agree that the content that is currently in the Education subsection of the article belongs there as part of the Management section. I wasn't thinking about the management aspect of autism (not even after DStrassmann stated "treatment of autism, of which education is one key critical component") when I suggested that the education material be a part of a Society and culture section. Seeing the material now, however, has definitely made me see what you two mean about the setup. But some of the content, especially the Policies material, that Jmarrs94 added is more of a society and culture matter. Again, that material is now in the Autism therapies article, when it would perhaps be better placed in the Sociological and cultural aspects of autism article. Furthermore, because of the aforementioned education material now being in the Autism therapies article, that article currently has two education sections with subsections; so it definitely needs better organization, especially to reduce redundancy. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes happy to have the policy material move to the main article. My concern with the policy material is that it was so United States centric. It needs to be made global in nature.

Additional issue is that the refs need formating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback, it has been very useful. In response, I plan to create the "society and culture" section as discussed above in the autism article. In this I will give a summary of the sociological and cultural aspects of autism article. I plan to also discuss the importance of education not only as a management/therapy technique but also as a central capability that aids in the development and success of any person. Along with this, I will discuss how autism has one of the lowest rates of postsecondary school enrollment and the effects this has on autistics. In regards to policy, I do agree that the original section I had written on that was too US centric, thus, I was planning on adding policies from other countries as well as from international organization such as the UN. I also plan to take my "current methods" subsection and incorporate it into the autism therapies article. I will also format the references in order to be consistent with the rest of the article. Jmarrs94 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is to be an overview. It is already too US centric IMO. I have moved a large portion of the educational discussion to the subpage here

Also per our MOS the ref goes right after the punctuation. No space needed first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Scope

This article claims to be about "classic" autism (Kanner-type autism) but its content belies this. Either it should be merged with autism spectrum or the content not strictly referring to "classic" autism needs to go. I am not sure if this is feasible, however, and the distinction between "classic" autism, Asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders has been removed in the DSM-5 (2013), anyway, so maybe a merger makes more sense, although specialised articles on "classic" autism, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, CDD, Rett's etc. could be kept. It is also noteworthy that sub-articles using the term "autism" generally refer to the spectrum, and this is – it appears to me – increasingly the prevailing mode of thought; the difficulty of the distinction may be illustrated by how Temple Grandin's diagnosis has shifted from "classic" autism to "high-functioning" autism and (according to her own website) Asperger's (HFA and Asperger's are sometimes differentiated and sometimes treated as the same). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Dietary interventions

I added information that reflects the current evidences of the gluten free diet in treating the symptoms of autism, after being discussed here and here, and included in gluten free diet.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Article quality and order

I would love to work on the articles quality: structure, sources, general language. I suggest that a "controversy" section is needed to place theories such as vaccination and Round up attributed causation. Some references need adjustment to the new criteria established by the DSM V. It would also be good to list the set of tests that can be used by age and type for diagnosis. Chibs007 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are not recommended. We discuss the fact that vaccines do not cause autism in the causes section. The DSM5 is discussed. However please keep in mind that while this book is important it is not the only important source. As this page is getting long a subpage on diagnosis of autism and ASD may be a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that "controversy" sections are not recommended. Noticed someone already fixed the reference to vaccines in the first paragraph and added a link to a complete controversy page. DSMV's changes from DSMIV are not obvious in the current page (completelly understand about it being one source but in many countries it is the most important one). I agree with that a subpage could be a good idea. The article seems more organized than the last time I read it. Chibs007 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead is typically kept to 4 paragraphs per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There is already a page for autism controversies- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_in_autism gr3524a talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Autism and lower levels of vitamin B12

This is newly discovered: a study has suggested and reported that children with autism have only 1/3 times the amount of vitamin B12 of typical children without the neurological disorder. Does it sound like something which would belong under the "Mechanism" section? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Source

Christopher Wanjek (February 15, 2016). "Low B12 seen in aging, autism and schizophrenia". Fox News. LiveScience. Retrieved February 21, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

Alternative Treatments (Not Currently Supported by Research)

Including a list of alternative treatments that are not supported by research studies may help individuals and their caregivers better navigate the world of alternative treatment. The autism article currently includes a few dangerous treatments and a bit of information on gluten related and casein-free diets. I would like to add a sentence discussing a few therapies that are not supported by the current evidence or that require further research to determine their impact on autism. For example, systematic reviews of acupuncture and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation have not found sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of these treatments.

References

Dr. Noisewatter (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr Noisewatter, about your citations, it would be helpful if you supplied the PMID when you bring refs. For instance the Cochrane review is PMID 21901712. If you write it simply like that (no colon) you can see that the Wikipedia software converts that into a link to the pubmed abstract. The PMID parameter has much higher value than the DOI, as pubmed also classifies the kind of paper it is - e.g. whether it is a review or a research paper (in other words, secondary or primary). And the publisher of the journal is not relevant - the journal is. Different people format refs differently, but I use this simple format. "Cheuk DK, Wong V, Chen WX. Acupuncture for autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7;(9):CD007849. Review. PMID 21901712"

About what you write, I think the sources you suggest are OK. What content are you proposing? Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Thank you for the advice. I will keep that in mind when editing in the future. In terms of content, I think that a sentence or two that lists a few treatments that are not proven to be effective in research would be sufficient to help individuals make decisions about seeking and/or accepting treatment. Dr. Noisewatter (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am asking you exactly what content you are proposing to add. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Antipsychotics side effects edit

Dr. Noisewatter about this dif. The citation does not include the journal name or the PMID, which you must include. It also is inaccurate, as the content spoke broadly about antipsychotics but the source was only about one drug. The source was also three years old, and there is a review on this from last year. the content was dropped into the paragraph, instead of engaging with the content that was already there. so i reverted and in my next edit, i fixed the problems. Please bear all those things in mind going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Medications

The subsection of the article on medications may benefit from greater detail about the effectiveness of different types of medication. For example, selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have not been proven effective in the treatment of children with ASD, but they may be beneficial in the treatment of adults with ASD.

References

-Dr. Noisewatter (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

again, please format your citations appropriately. the publisher of a journal is not relevant. the name of the journal is. and the PMID is essential. I don't care what format you use, but you must include the name of the journal and the PMID, and do not include the publisher of the journal. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for fixing the citation in this dif Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

The alternative medicine subsection of the autism article does not include any positive information regarding alternative treatments. I would like to add the following information about music therapy.

Music therapy is one form of alternative treatment that is moderately effective in improving the social interactions and communication skills of individuals, particularly children, with ASD.

References

Dr. Noisewatter (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

this source is Geretsegger M, et al. Music therapy for people with autism spectrum disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 17;6:CD004381. Review. PMID 24936966. That's a good source.

what content are you proposing based on this source? Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The alternative medicine section of this page seems to be a little biased against alternative medication. I think that my previously stated sentence about music therapy would demonstrate that beneficial alternative treatments for ASD do indeed exist. Dr. Noisewatter (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am asking you exactly what content you are proposing. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that you have chosen to work on a WP:Featured article which means the content is already of very high quality and we need to be careful that new edits maintain that high quality. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This thread is kind of stale, but it's worth keeping in mind that the current state of the article may simply be reflective of reality. That is, I suspect that most alternative treatments are ineffective at best and that, while including positive information about them is all well and good, it shouldn't be given undue weight. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 17:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Large Danish study links autism and circumcision

http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision

"According to the new study, which included 340,000 Danish boys, it looks as though circumcision increases the risk of developing autism."

This looks like a good study and there is mention that is has been replicated. If someone wants to work it into this article, go ahead. If nobody does it or object I might get around to it in a week or so.

Keith Henson (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hkhenson As I already replied over at Talk:Circumcision where you left the same incorrect note. That news article is pretty responsible and says that the study has not been replicated yet. Everybody quoted there also said that the study found a slight correlation and cautioned people from drawing causation conclusions: correlation is not causation. In any case this PMID 25573114 is a primary source and per MEDRS we wait to see how reviews treat it. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2016 (UT

I am curious as to why you say what I wrote was incorrect. The cite for a paper reaching similar conclusions is given in the second comment, so I agree it has not been replicated yet, just that there is another supporting study. I am not proposing to cite any primary sources. Keith Henson (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources on parents noticing signs

The first cited source in the intro doesn't seem to say anything about the claim it's next to - "Parents usually notice signs in the first two years of their child's life"[16] - unless I've missed something. Surprisingly seems to have been like that since 2009 when the citation was moved from a sentence following it[17]. That 'Management' source does refer to a "companion document" on 'Identification', cited elsewhere here about other issues, which does say "Most parents become concerned between 15 and 18 months", "most parents sense something is wrong by the time the child is 18 months old"[18] And there is a source in the body of article saying similar things albeit in regard to any ASD.[19]. Eversync (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess the Identification source should be swapped in for the Management one in the intro, but then the wording would need tweaking. Scanning through the ultimate sources, the wording of the Nature article cited in the body seems to imply parents were reporting concerns specifically of ASD but neither of the cited sources seemed to say that and in fact one specifically points out that most parents weren't initially reporting concerns that would differentiate autism - but primarily (by a long distance) delays in speech & language or other non-specific features. Some other source suggested that may be changing with the increased public awareness, but then another source pointed out a substantial proportion of parents wrongly report concerns. And then again another source pointed out a substantial proportion of early diagnoses of autism are found to be longer applied at some later age in childhood. I can only guess the wording has to be a bit noncommittal. Eversync (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives

Here is a list of archives/accessdates that I added to this article.

Reference edited	Actions taken
American RadioWorks: Fast Food and Animal Rights - Kill Them With Kindness, Page 1	+archive_url, date (archived on 2 November 2015)

--Tim1357 ^talk|poke 04:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Recently added 'expert needed' tag

I wonder, why was this tag added? I really see no need for it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page leads me to believe this was a mistake. I'm going to remove it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"With autism" vs "autistic"

This article seems to exclusively use person-first language ("people with autism") ahead of identity-first language ("autistic people"). Autistic people and professionals who work with them disagree on which is better, and I am unaware of any Wikipedia-wide standards.

If Wikipedia does have a standard, it is surely to prefer the more concise term - in this case, "autistic" ahead of "with autism" - unless there is a good case not to. Autistic people generally prefer identity-first language, and this is recommended by the major organisations promoting autism rights, the Autism Self Advocacy Network (USA) and the National Autistic Society (UK).

I propose changing the article to prefer identity-first language, except when such phrasing would be awkward. Does this have consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIAG (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a recurring issue on this article and within the community at large. The WikiProject disability style guide notes that "identity-first language is generally preferred with regards to ... autism"; however, the last time it was discussed in-depth on this page the final decision was to go with "person-first" language.

People may well want to discuss the issue, but it seems to me that it is unlikely that the decision reached will satisfy all parties. That said, the discussion linked above is from two years ago, so if there are new sources that would justify the change, it may be worth re-opening the discussion. I have unfortunately not been reading scholarly articles related to autism recently, so I don't have any to hand that I can cite immediately.

Exotropic Snail (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My personal philosophy has become to leave it however it was when I got there since I think there are good arguments for both sides. It helps reduce some redundancy too, so stylistically, it's nice to be able to change it up. —PermStrump(talk) 06:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

autism in girls

Many people say that autism is more common in males. However, when girls are affected with autism, they are more severely affected and more likely to have low intelligence. Are there references that can clarify this info? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

2015 review

Says "an association of ASD with maternal Rubella and CMV infection in pregnancy, maternal inflammation and immune activation, or exposure in pregnancy to VPA, cocaine and high levels of ethanol seems very likely."[20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)