Talk:Autism/History as of 2007 February 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

section on "Introduction"

I have committed some of the text to related subsections and revised the introduction for synoptic brevity thereby, I hope, reducing the rather scattered approach in the introduction and making it an actual introduction for the remainder of the article. Text has not been deleted as such but relocated. There were some non-Wiki phrases (e.g. "most notably") that was rewritten to simply focus on the content rather than a POV that seemed apparent. Malangthon 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Edits by Q0

The section in Introduction changed:

  • Autism refers to a group of diseases or disorders of the development of the human central nervous system that specifically impair social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.

to

  • Autism refers to a group of conditions of the development of the human central nervous system that specifically impair social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.


I infer an attempt to address what is considered to be POV by some people with a vested interest—people who represent another POV in fact. However, the edit now renders the text incoherent and has compromised the facts stated in the original text which can not be considered a candidate for deletion simply because someone disagrees with the facts.

A. The reference is to the DSM and the ICD. This is factual.
B. Conditions are like weather--everyone expects it to change and be different and there are web sites for day-to-day weather--not Wikipedia however which contains the entire subject rather than small variations. Autism, by comparison, is not an expected variant like daily weather or hair colour. This leads to--
C. Unlike the variations in hair colour and weather we see on the street every day and do not record in Wikipedia, diseases and disorders merit comment suitable for Wikipedia.
D. “Conditions” just does not read coherently.
E. The edit is in fact a very definite POV-a POV is now replaced with a POV.

How about: In the scientific and medical literature, Autism refers to a group of diseases or disorders of the development of the human central nervous system that specifically impair social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.

Conversely, Autism may be considered conditions that theoretically involve the development of the human central nervous system. The development may be perceived as a variant of what is statistically typical. Malangthon 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: We are not going to get into an edit war here. Q0 continues to make valuable contributions and I think everyone here wants to see this article brought up to Wikipedia's highest standards. However, if the above alternative text is not a problem, then I will change it back in the very near future--tomorrow for example--after folks have had a chance to read and ponder. Malangthon 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To start with, I think the new edit makes the header look a bit clumsy. While I'm not sure if I agree with the POV suggestions, I agree that it's fine the way it was before, but because it's easier to read. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Diseases and disorders" is more specific and should be used. It's simply a more precise term. I see no reason to introduce ambiguities where none existed prior. Also, the usage of "conditions" doesn't really make sense logically. It's very ... odd wording and should be changed back. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Autism Society of America defines autism as "...a complex developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life and is the result of a neurological disorder that affects the normal functioning of the brain, impacting development in the areas of social interaction and communication skills." I've edited the intro section for readability, and modifed the first sentence to reflect this very mainstream and hopefully neutral definition. Please note that the first paragraph is shorter because redundancies were combined; no content was excised. wintersmith 05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up and providing your insight and contribution. Wintersmith's edit does make for a smoother read and is more precise.
My proposed addition to the opening line:
  • "Conversely, Autism may be considered conditions that theoretically involve the development of the human central nervous system. The development may be perceived as a variant of what is statistically typical."
Would it add to the objectivity of the article and provide a more rounded approach? Malangthon 06:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a bit of a beef with the opening line - I'm not positive, but isn't autism a single developmental disorder, and everything else is part of the spectrum? If this is the case, autism is not a group of conditions. I know it's a matter of degree to a certain extent, but there is a definite cut-off, below which it is considered PDD-NOS; Aspergers and Rhetts would not be considered 'autism' per se, but would be on the spectrum. Also, the intro (I'd have to check the policy to be more sure) should be in the intro, the first section of text, and should be a short summary of the article below. There should basically be no references, 'cause all of the information is sourced and referenced in the body text. Though I think the intro was far too long, it should be trimmed but right now it looks like a series of disconnected sentences. I might have a read through and ensure all the info in the intro is also in the text, then try a bit of editing. I'll give the talk page a read before I do anything major though. WLU 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi WLU,
I think the literature that I have read thus far refers to it as 'a' disorder, in other words, the idea that it is a single disorder may simply be understood. The definition is, as others have pointed out here and there in Wikipedia, a bit vague. Autism, as you point out, is also a disorder in a class with others which may be different or simply variants of the same thing--that is definitely not established in the literature and is a hot topic of debate to be sure.
The intro formatting--It was getting very cumbersome to edit. If it is not the correct format, do the change. I was hoping to get it sorted out in a brief sentence at the top because the first part of the article was getting very convoluted, redundant and obtuse. If by reference you are referring to the WHO classification,, it does place it on the doorstep, so to speak, and in context while noting the definitive source that provides the definition. I say that because this really is a hot potato on so many levels and the language register Q0 has proposed is both objective and not overly authoritative. It is an important issue and I think it deserves a careful read and edit process. So, ta, WLU. Malangthon 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. The reason I changed diseases and disorders to conditions is because the assertion that autism is a disorder or disease is disputed and therefore I did not consider it neutral. I have seen condition used in place of disorder as a way of resolving this issue in the past, so I didn't think it would be a problem here. I thought that the word condition simply means state of being and does not say anything about it being a good state of being or a bad state of being so would cover either perspective of autism. Actually, terms like heart condition are often used to refer to heart disorders, so the word condition has some baggage, but I couldn't think of a better word. Please note that there are two places where autism is introduced: both at the very top of the article, and the top of the section titled Introduction. I used the word condition at the very top but not in the Introduction section. I am less concerned about the Introduction section because it also mentions that some autistic people don't want to be cured, and because it asserts that autism is a developmental disability "... according to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases." Even though the classification of autism is disputed, it is not disputed that the WHO classifies autism in that way. However, the way the article is organized, it seems that some people (such as those only skimming articles) might only read the very top sentence without being informed that multiple points of view exist. I would like to suggest the following sentences to be used as an introductory sentence at the top of the article, if people still have a problem with the word condition:

  • The nature of autism is controversial, but the World Health Organization classifies it as a developmental disability of the human central nervous system that specifically affect social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.
  • Autism is classified it as a developmental disability of the human central nervous system that specifically affect social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities by the World Health Organization. However, this classification is controversial.

Could either of these suggestions resolve the above dispute? Q0 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But you know, I feel compelled to note the limitation on the scientific definition. It really may mean a mere difference in how the world--human interaction specifically--is perceived. I think my second paragraph nails that. But, you have put a lot in this and I think you want this to be accurate. Let's go with the first one with a short clarification:
  • The nature of autism (its causes, symptoms, physiology and other issues) is controversial. However, the World Health Organization classifies it as a developmental disability of the human central nervous system that specifically affects social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.

If we need to delete the WHO ICD classification in the introduction we can make note of the two sides of the issue, possibly using the two paragraphs I have proposed, if that is agreeable. Malangthon 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


neurodevelopmental disorders will not link to the article (stub actually) within Wikipedia. The article is there if you use the search function. I have checked the formatting and it seems to be OK. Any idea what is wrong? Malangthon 08:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual page name was Neurodevelopmental Disorders - apparently searching ignores capitals, but wikilinks do not. I moved the page to Neurodevelopmental disorders and that seemed to fix the links.
Unrelated point and personal beef - I've only got experience with autism as a non-controversial diagnosis, where (within scientific literature) is it considered controversial? And I'm not talking about treatments that do and don't work, I understand that the etiology may be controversial, but isn't the straight-up diagnosis of language, social and interest 'impairment' pretty much understood as accurate? If not, could someone direct me to the wikipage so's I can read up on it before stepping in more fully? Thanks. WLU 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: unrelated beef. Much of the controversy is over the diagnosis and differentiating the PDD and the ASD (which by the way I am correcting since they are a set and a subset and not synonymous) from other problems. There are groups out there like OTR whose members are dealing with treatable symptoms, conducting clinical trials and lumping autistic people with Fragile-X, schizophrenia etc. The problem is not that they are garbling the message (although that happens) but that their readers are. Another problem is that the entire research as a whole will show a myriad cluster of related terms and guidelines, which are cut and dried until you start reviewing the literature. Autism gets lumped in with other syndromes and the message can become very cloudy. Then there is the degree to which a child shows the symptoms even if everyone is in agreement on what those symptoms are--How many times does a child have to do something to make it abnormally repetitive behaviour? What else might make the child do the same over and over again? Are they non-communicative or just afraid of people for another reason entirely. Much of this is about early diagnosis. Strangely, many autistic people seem to show amelioration of the malady as they age--is this due to the natural process or a misdiagnosis when they were very young?
So, not at all clear cut. Basically Einstein made it simple. He noted that no matter how many times experiments showed he was correct, it only took one to prove him wrong. The field is science to be sure, but incontrovertible certainty is surely not scientific. I have seen the definition of many things change in my lifetime and this is one of those things. It is controversial. It is also trivial for those of us who read and try to stay up with the literature in any field. But Wiki is an encyclopaedia and often the trivial (i.e. obvious) to one group is a revelation to another. My two cents. Malangthon 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
A nice synopsis of the controversy can be found about halfway down the page here [1] where the National Autistic Society website has summed it up in four points. Malangthon 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In the section "WHY AUTISM IS FERTILE GROUND FOR PSEUDOSCIENCE" at [2], a reprint from a journal (all nicely identified in the piece) the authors also reiterate some of the issues that bring this into the realm of the controverted. Malangthon 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know I am not being pedantic, but the line in the introduction: "There are numerous theories as to the specific causes of autism but they are as yet unproven (see section on "Causes" below)." is a bit sophomoric. Might be OK for us here but very few diseases are "proven" in relation to cause. It is trivial to point this out. The statement does point out that there are numerous theories so the 'as yet unproven' phrase is redundant.

Your thoughts. Malangthon 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the intro is bugging me. It explicitly uses one definition of autism (from WHO and APA), which isn't exactly NPOV, as there are different ways to define it. There are plenty of sites that give introductory definitions of autism and I think it's best if we try and find a middle ground between them. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Those are a few definitions that I found that might help in rewriting the intro. Also, maybe looking at the intro for Asperger Syndrome might help, as it is related to autism and a featured article. --James Duggan 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you are suggesting. When I looked at the websites you gave, the descriptions of autism were mostly the same as the WHO and APA's definition. I know that the neurodiversity/autism rights movement consider autism to be a healthy variation in neurological hardwiring. I know that Simon Baron-Cohen had a theory that autism is a hyper-masculinization of the brain. I realize that there are many more ideas and opinions about what autism is than the models I know about. The causes of autism writes about some models of autism. However, I think it might be worth having a models of autism article. What do you think would be helpful to make the introduction more NPOV? Should it describe more models than just the WHO/APA's definition of autism? Should it describe only the WHO/APA's model of autism, but mention that other models exist and/or that the definition of autism is controversial? Should a models of autism article be created and should the introduction link to that article? Should the article introduce autism as something with many definitions and much controversy about what exactly autism is and then describe how the different definitions are similiar and how they are different? Q0 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So, uhm, if the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association are not authoritative enough to give us ample definition, what sources are authoritative on definitions of autism, or could possibly be more authoritative? V-Man737 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if V-Man737's comment is reply to my comment or to James Duggan's comment. The way I see it: experts can be factually incorrect and the opinions of experts are still just opinions. I believe expert POV is still POV. I believe it is POV for Wikipedia to assert a considered expert's assertion as a fact in cases where concerned parties have disputed the considered expert's assertion. I think the introduction is acceptable as it is since, however, since it asserts that the WHO and APA have made a particular assertion, instead of asserting the WHO and APA's assertion as fact. I think it is appropriate, however, to describe the WHO/APA's model of autism first since that is the most well known model, and Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give priority to more well known POVs. However, I still think it should be acknowledged that not everyone agrees with the WHO and APA's definition of autism. I think the way the introduction is currently written is good enough since it says that a number of issues are controversial and mentions at the end of the introduction that some autistic people don't consider autism a disorder. However, if people feel that more sides of the debate need to be represented, I would be open minded to amending the introduction to reflect this. Q0 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All Remarks on Introduction are here

  • Hi folks, I started this by posting willy nilly. Now it is getting to big so I simply placed the section here since it is the first part of the article. Hope this allows folks to follow the conversation a little easier. NO TEXT HAS BEEN CHANGED. Everything your wrote is intact. Malangthon 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

section on Characteristics

This was getting a little diffuse. I went ahead and added a definitive source. However, the list format, while certainly preferred in the real world (it was a list on the NICHD publicaton for example) is often decried on Planet Wikipedia. I have no idea why. Anyway, the publication is from a US government office and can be quoted at length in full. The source for the citation is also mentioned. I have altered the text somewhat just in case anyone has an issue with copyright. Malangthon 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection on "Sensory System"

I deleted the following: " Some believe that sensory issues can be helped nutritionally through sensory diets or sensory snacks[citation needed] which are typically put together by trained occupational therapists. The diet consists of items that are thought to help keep the senses in control, with the intention of helping the individual cope better with sensory-related problems.[citation needed]"

It is

a. unreferenced
b. the wrong style
c. uses weasel words (some believe)
d. Outlandish claims--dietary items that help keep the senses in control? Unless you are talking about nutrition for chronically malnourished children, we are dealing with a profound organic structural variation in the human brain and the answer is special snacks? If there are real sources for this, it would be a nice addition but until then this reads like a local health store ad.

I have also been looking for any occupational therapy orgnisation (e.g. AOTA) that is saying that they can control senses in autistic children with diet(providing they are not suffering from long-term dietary imbalances). No luck. Malangthon 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Sensory diet is NOT about special foods, if you look at the page on Sensory Integration Disorder, sensory diet is about taking sensory breaks. This means taking the time to use a therapy ball, a swing, take a walk, other activities. "Snacks" are less intrusive ones such as chewing gum or using a chewy tube.

You deleted something you do not understand. Please look up the definitions of phrases before you delete them because you decided they mean something THEY DO NOT.

OK,
  • First the writer above did not sign the entry;
  • Second, yes there are people out there talking about diet and autism but they are often going overboard with it much like the diets for ADD (I have been following this stuff in the literature since the late 60s);
  • Third, yes I do understand the phrases and the language in the deleted text and the referenced article is categorically obtuse and my figure of speech as well as the literal meaning makes this readily apparent if you had read the comments I made;
  • Fourth, the article you want to base your efforts upon is in serious need of citations and is appropriately tagged. Malangthon 01:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I deleted 'sensory integration dysfunction' lines- (a) it does not appear in PubMed archives, (b) many of the article links are commercial, (c) legitimate sources do not call it a disorder and use different terminology. Malangthon 10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

section on "Treatment"

The text refers to a source with the statement: "The method that has been best documented to show positive results is Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA),[29] which systematically breaks down and teaches tasks.

The citation says " "This study corroborates earlier studies showing the power of early intensive behavior analytic intervention," said Howard, the study's principal investigator. "It is important because it is one of only a few studies in which the ABA intervention was delivered through a community- based, rather than a university-affiliated program. These results signal the potential for delivering effective intervention without the resources of a university-based clinic."

It does not say it is the best documented. In fact it says there are few studies like it. It goes on to say: " "The study is also noteworthy because it is only the second one to compare the common practice of combining multiple treatment approaches ("eclectic" treatment) with a cohesive approach based on the science of applied behavior analysis,""

This needs to be deleted or rewritten since it is not accurate. Malangthon 12:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

neanderthal autism

perhaps someone more qualified / knowledgeable than i could add something about the neanderthal theory of autism. as i understand, the theory supposes that autistics are *not* dysfunctional, aberrant, etc. there *is* a wikipedia page about this at User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal_theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.178.44 (talk • contribs).

This has been brought up in the past (the author is a Wikipedia editor). The problem is that this theory is (still) in its original research stage. Wikipedia can't say anything about it unless it's been published by a reliable source - apparently it hasn't. Its scientific aspects need scholarly sources, any other aspects need to be notable per coverage in respectable general media. See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. AvB ÷ talk 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I think there are a number of problems with this.
  • It relies on genetic analysis which has been done. That analysis shows--to date--that Neanderthals and humans are divergent species and that humans are not progeny of Neandethals (but see [10] "Neanderthal Genome Sequencing Yields Surprising Results And Opens A New Door To Future Studies").
  • The description of autistic behaviour and the comparison with Neanderthal behaviour is reliant on sheer speculation (which is the beginning of much scientific endeavour to be sure but . . ) and this speculation then becomes the basis for more speculation. The Neandethals have been dead a long time ergo no living examples with which to compare archaeological and paleo-anthropological data, This means using unproven premises for yet more unproven assertions.

It is a fascinating idea. Would make a great movie. That is not a slam by the way.

There is also the idea that autistic people (specifically those with Asperger Syndrome) are and have been what would be called wizards, priests and bards in the old days. This makes me think of the theory--referenced in the Autism article-- that Henry Cavendish had Asperger's. Fascinating but in the end what we do know is limited to this--Asperger Syndrom people may be intellectually very advanced but they are not likely to want to communicate with others about their work and that means they remain hidden from observation which in turn means a dearth of information from which to derive descriptions. Given that alchemists and those labelled wizards were notorious for being socially isolated, this may be a fascinating idea but there is very little we can do with it until someone steps forward in a reputable forum to deal with it.

I have been trying to find a reputable source positing a link between autism and Neanderthals but so far no luck. Malangthon 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it will take some more time before anything is published by a reputable source, but it will be sooner or later. The Neanderthal nuclear-DNA project and large autism genomes will eventually provide the data to definitely prove (or disprove) it. --Rdos 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


section on "Causes"

I noticed that in the article there is a sporadic and dispersed treatment of much of the research into actual organic components of autism. I have attempted to divide the information into coherent sections treating definitive aspects and to update the current research perspectives that herald a paradigm shift in scientific perspectives of the malady. Malangthon 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of edits have slipped through that are unsourced and ungrammatical and I deleted them

  • "Parents of an autistic child who may have experienced crucial drug-use has also been questioned of whether or not to cause the disease."

24.131.5.175 29 January, 2007

  • "Other people believe that autism was caused by some sort of brain damage which was caused by an oxygen loss at birth or early at life."

216.251.169.134 26 January, 2007 Malangthon 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of info

I removed: By age 3, typical children have passed predictable language learning milestones; one of the earliest is babbling. By the first birthday, a typical toddler says words or turns when he or she hears his or her name, points when he or she wants a toy, and when offered something distasteful, makes it clear that the answer is "no." It should be noted, however, that late language development does occur in a minority of neurotypical children.

Speech development in people with autism takes different paths than the majority of neurotypical children. Some remain mute throughout their lives with varying degrees of literacy; communication in other ways—images, visual clues, sign language, and typing may be far more natural to them. Contrary to the prevailing traditional stereotype of mute people with Kanner-type autism, around one third of people diagnosed with this type of autism will develop what is often viewed as dysfunctional verbal language, relying on rote learned stored phrases, songs, jingles and advertisements. The earliest published autobiographical account of this is Donna Williams first book, "Nobody Nowhere", (1991). Those with the autism spectrum condition of Semantic Pragmatic Disorder fall into this group.

Those who do speak sometimes use language in unusual ways, retaining features of earlier stages of language development for long periods or throughout their lives. Some speak only single words, while others repeat a mimicked phrase over and over. Some repeat what they hear, a condition called echolalia. Sing-song repetitions in particular are a calming, joyous activity that many autistic adults engage in. Many people with autism have a strong tonal sense, and can often understand at least some spoken language whilst others can understand language fluently.

Some children may exhibit only slight delays in language, or even seem to have precocious language and unusually large vocabularies, but have great difficulty in sustaining typical conversations. The "give and take" of non-autistic conversation is hard for them, although they often carry on a monologue on a favorite subject, giving no one else an opportunity to comment. When given the chance to converse with other autistics, they comfortably do so in "parallel monologue"—taking turns expressing views and information.[citation needed] Just as "neurotypicals" (people without autism) have trouble understanding autistic body languages, vocal tones, or phraseology, people with autism similarly have trouble with such things in people without autism. In particular, autistic language abilities tend to be highly literal; people without autism often inappropriately attribute hidden meaning to what people with autism say or expect the person with autism to sense such unstated meaning in their own words.

because it appears to blatant copyvio material from this site. If anyone would care to rewrite it that would be great because this is good info and its coming from a reliable source.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 12:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jklin,

I went to the site. At the top it states, "Autism Spectrum Disorders (from NIMH) - Part 1," and "This brief overview of autism from the NIMH covers the symptoms, treatments, and research findings." So, it is not copyright violation, just not attributed correctly--i.e. it should site NIMH and the date retrieved from secondary website. I would say

  • A. put it back in
  • B. attribute the source correctly--NIMH is a higher authority than Doctor's Lounge.

Malangthon 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Literature

A section for literature is lacking. Have you left it out on purpose? I would like to recommend the book There's a Boy in Here. A mother and her son tell the story of his emergence from autism, by Judy & Sean Barron, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, but I don't know where to place it on the mainpage, it is so full.

Austerlitz 88.72.14.89 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a ton of books on autism, so unless it's very noteworthy, there's not much reason to put it on the page. If it's about a specific treatment that helped the family/kid, you could put it in that page. WLU 20:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It is very noteworthy, according to my judgement. It is the story of a child, a boy, who had been diagnozed with autism at the age of four, and the way to healing, first following the receipts of different kinds of therapists and experts, then leaving those professional helpers go and doing the way alone, following the own instinct and common sense, that is, the mother of the child doing this work.

At the age of 25 the young man decided to write a book about the meaning of autism, reconfronting his painful but past experience, his mother helping him with the diaries she had written during all those years of desperation. It is a convincing story about healing.

Austerlitz 88.72.14.89 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like my opinion on the matter, unless it is a very specific page (i.e. [[Books related to autism]]), it'll probably get pulled. As far as I know, let me hear your voice isn't even on wikipedia, and I think that one's a classic. You have to realize that there are many, many books, and to put every single book related to every single topic would be way too much. Particularly on a topic like autism where there's so much interest. That being said, it's only my opinion, so go ahead and try it. WLU 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice but WLU is correct, it will probably get pulled. There are so many that if eveyone who had such a reference were to list it the article would be small by comparison to the reference list. I have not looked at this but would such an article (Books related to autism) work here? A synoptic reading list? Not sure that is part of the Wiki mission? Malangthon 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Oh, by the way, technically, the literature section is there. The reference section (and the footnotes) by definition holds references to the relevant literature. Malangthon 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Malangthon, I've put it there. But I'll try to describe its special qualities better than I managed to do until now, one of these days. Maybe it will remain in the reference section for a while. Austerlitz 88.72.3.207 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way. Austerlitz 88.72.3.207 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Austerlitz, I think the article you are looking for is Autistic culture. They have books on the subject listed with a synopsis. Malangthon 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment two links, refering to the book and to Sean Barron:

Austerlitz 88.72.3.207

infobox

The list in the infobox is a little garbled

  • ICD-10 F84.0
  • ICD-9 299.0
  • OMIM 209850
  • MedlinePlus 001526

The DSM-IV-TR is supposed to be the second which is listed as ICD-9. I rewrote the script but it simply voids that entry and the one below it. There is something I do not know to do or it has a glitch. Malangthon 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

    • apparently

**are considered **might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), pediatric (A) (British: paediatric), any more (B) (American: anymore).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Peer Review

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The lead is brief and to the point. The article is the article and the headings and paragraphs are themselves very --or at least getting--very brief Malangthon 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
This is used in the DSM definition so someone needs to talk to those folks who write the DSM--don't think they'd be amused. I do not have a copy of the DSM-IV and cannot get a direct quote however. It may be that the wording is different. In the meantime I see the so called weasel word now and again in juried journals and it is honest, not weasely. For example the next occurrence is
“Autism presents in a wide degree, from those who are nearly dysfunctional and apparently mentally disabled”
Mental disability is so often a judgement call that is not verified by any evidence of organic failure or malformation that this is not, I repeat, Not, a weasel word—the label may be however. I say leave it as it is. Malangthon 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


RE: Spelling. Some one is going through this and changing the English to American. Now I have a great respect for Daniel Webster and his towering intellect but he was grossly misguided in this. This version of Wikipedia is the English version not American dialect version and, as a Yank of the old school, this is an issue upon which I suggest POMS and Commonwealthers not even waste their time. Anyone wants to spend their time and go through and change the spelling to follow this rather small detail is welcome--but I am not going to alter it to what is a regional variation with a very short history in comparison with the proper spelling. The article Kanner wrote, by the way, that kicked this off--it was published in Britain. I say leave it be with proper English spelling. And too, 'Z' is just damned ugly, the less we use it the better. Malangthon 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)



Regarding point made for, “ See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]”

I have no idea what that might be. Suggestions? Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, what is to me anyway, obscure directive: “Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]”

Not sure what they are saying, each occurrence of a year with a full date must be linked to the great Wikipedia database in the Sky? OK. Seems like a lot of effort for a puzzling and small thing. Any idea why they would want this? Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]

Had not noticed this. Will look again. Is this a ‘search’ protocol thing? Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the observation: “Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]”

I have noticed how long these things get. The single column style we are pinned to does not help either. Another aspect of the article is that it provides (it is our intent anyway to provide) well demarcated sections that can be referenced quickly from the TOC. Since this is not a book and the reader can not glance quickly at the subheadings (you see one frame at a time) the TOC helps expedite this with hyper-linking. Merging the different sections, though some may need it, will obscure the advantage this technology provides and the purpose of the entire encyclopaedia. Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the admonition to “Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1’s redundancy exercises.)”

We are trying to be sure. However, there is a cohesive aspect to redundancy that is important in any text so eliminating it entirely would compromise the cohesion as well as the coherence of the text. I refer to the work of, notably, MAK Halliday. I’ll run over to Tony’s place and see what I can see. Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the assertion, “Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.””

It is good they said “are often unnecessary”. At some point the article could get bogged down with numbers and that would be a distracting thing, too. Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And last of all, “Please provide citations for all of the [citation needed]s.[?] Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]”

They are preaching to the choir as our efforts would indicate. It is a never ending job to be sure. Malangthon 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors and those of us who would like to see this article back up on the Feature Article list,

I am going over those articles that have Feature Status to get a picture of what this genre (Wikipedia standards that is) requires, e.g. phrasing, organisation etc. If you have the intention of getting this up to status, take a look at the related article (those in the health care genre that is) and let us know what you think we can do to improve this article. I have already made some observations in my analysis and will put them in here from time to time. Malangthon 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

B Class Rating

I noticed that we are still rated fourth from the top in quality, to wit:

  • FA-Class psychology articles
  • A-Class psychology articles
  • GA-Class psychology articles
  • B-Class psychology articles

Any idea if we can get this looked at and re-evaluated? Malangthon 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


CAN WE GET AN UPDATE

Was wondering how far we've come and what exactly must be done to raise the rating of this article. How do we request a peer review update? Malangthon 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

We seem to be getting a lot of this in the last 24 hours. What gives? Malangthon 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably vandals doing a "recent changes" patrol. Uh... Or stuffing WP:BEANS up their noses. Vandals, don't stuff beans up your noses!! They'll get stuck and nobody will volunteer to pull them out for you. V-Man737 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


205.155.228.5

is the origin of a lot of vandalism and some of it quite extensive. I traced it to

OrgName: California State University Network OrgID: CSU Address: 4665 Lampson Avenue City: Los Alamitos StateProv: CA PostalCode: 90720 Country: US

Could be anyone. Is there some way we can block this or is it even acceptable? I imagine it is a site from which just about anyone can edit Wikipedia.Malangthon 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


216.113.128.161

has made only three edits on wikipedia from that ISP, all to this article and all are wholesale deletions. I traced it to

OrgName: Worldspan, L.P. OrgID: WLSP Address: 300 Galleria Parkway NW City: Atlanta StateProv: GA PostalCode: 30339 Country: US

Is this blockable?Malangthon 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


207.237.8.231

has added the same link to 13 articles here in the last 10 days. The link looks related to all the articles but perhaps the persistency and the indentical site (an award winning PBS show it is stated) on Keeping Kids Healthy may be the result of confusion and over eagerness. Again, using the ARIN WHOIS search engine I came up with:

OrgName: RCN Corporation OrgID: RCN Address: 196 Van Buren St. City: Herndon StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20170 Country: US

Anyway we can determine if some one is dealing with this person, if it is just one? Malangthon 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


202.152.78.194

ARIN WHOIS Source for 202.152.78.194 indicates the point from which Wikipedia was reaches is in Queensland Australia

Registered to OrgName: Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Address: PO Box 213, Milton, QLD, 4064 Australia

So I went to the APNIC WHOIS database which states that the client may be behind a web proxy and lists out of Brunei

inetnum: 202.152.64.0 - 202.152.95.255 netname: SIMPUR-AP descr: SIMPUR ISP, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei country: BN

person: Hj Saifuddin Hj Ibrahim address: DST Headquaters, Jalan Tungku Link, Bandar Seri Begawan BE 3619 country: BN

person: Pg.Mohd.Azamuddin Pg.Hj Mohiddin address: DST Headquarters, Jalan Tungku Link BE3619, Bandar Seri Begawan country: BN

Shows persistent vandalism Malangthon 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

24.0.113.12

A dead end without further investigation. ARIN lists Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. in Pennsylvania

Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. EASTERNSHORE-1 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. PA-34 (NET-24-0-0-0-2) 24.0.0.0 - 24.0.255.255

Shows persistent vandalism Malangthon 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

91.0.103.190

This is spam as I see it in that the same links are being placed on numerous sources without attempting to justify the link. I dropped over a the talk page for this IP and left a note to introduce him/herself

ARIN Whois Lead me to the RIPE database [11] which says inetnum: 91.0.0.0 - 91.23.255.255 netname: DTAG-DIAL22 descr: Deutsche Telekom AG country: DE person: DTAG Global IP-Addressing address: Deutsche Telekom AG address: D-90492 Nuernberg address: Germany person: Security Team Malangthon 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

70.185.239.70

ARIN WHOIS Traced to
Cox Communications Inc. NETBLK-COX-ATLANTA-10

Malangthon 02:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Want to thank those who are keeping on top of the gremlins, they have been busy, eh? Malangthon 04:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism on 2 Feb., 2007 ARIN WHOIS Search results for: 24.81.164.238 Shaw Communications Inc., Suite 800, 630 - 3rd Ave. SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P-4L4 Canada Malangthon 09:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE SIGN IN AND PUT YOUR RATIONALE ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE

216.207.50.106

ARIN WHOIS trace gives no real information
Qwest Communications Corporation
Contributions (only two to date from Dec. 2006) indicate to me this source is constructive but has not registered or does not know to log in

Malangthon 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

74.112.127.139

Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
Contributions (11 to date from Oct. 2006) indicate to me this source is constructive but has not registered or does not know to log in.
One Wikipedia entry, here. Puerile vandalism. Malangthon 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Want to thank those who are keeping on top of the gremlins, they have been busy, eh? Malangthon 04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

section for External Links

V-Man737 deleted the comment "Her presence here on this article is essential," from my footnote link to Temple Grandin and I concede the point. However, let me make that observation here. Malangthon 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read her article, I heartily agree with you that she belongs here. V-Man737 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)



My edits

I have been working on doing a minor copyedit of the article. However, I don't want to step on any toes, so feel free to change any of my edits you feel are out of place. I haven't read all of the comments here on the talk page, so I'm trying not to make any changes in content right now.

I did add that public awareness might be one cause among many for the increase in diagnosis, however this is from my personal thinking and is not a sourced addition. It just seems obvious that as people are more aware, they bring possible cases to the attention of doctors more often. --DanielCD 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

photo in history

Why do we have a photo of Hans Asperger and not Leo Kanner? Asperger syndrome already has it's own page and his picture should be on that page. This page, to my understanding, is about Kanner's autism, so his picture should be used, not Asperger's. --James Duggan 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree. It should be both of them. Dubhagan deleted Asperger in favour of Kanner. I think Dubhagan was half right. This is not at all uncommon, two or more people coming up with the same idea at nearly the same time. Asperger's work was hidden by a rather significant period of political turmoil and while that was going on, his work at home did progess although the audience was rather limited. I say put both in. Malangthon 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


And I'd like a little discussion of this sort of change before it happens. Please replace it while leaving Kanner's photo. We'll chat. Malangthon 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Asperger's form of Autism has it's own article. Since this article focuses on Kanner's autism, only Kanner's photo should be used. --James Duggan 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't see that one excludes the other. Relevance is for this article. Imagine Issac Newton being pictured for say, his work in alchemy (which was the primary emphasis of much of his working life) and only a brief mention for Principia Mathematica, calculus etc.--he is in one so he can not be in both. Asperger is relevant here and in the related article. Malangthon 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a picture of both Kanner and Asperger should be included. Q0 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the picture of Asperger into the section discussing Asperger's syndrome. Both in the history section looked too crowded, this way they are still in the article and it spreads out the pictures more (it is pretty textually dense. WLU 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sound choice. Malangthon 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Person-first language.

Does the fact that the article continuously refers to people as "autistic" bother anyone but me? I am a special education major and the first thing we are taught is to refer to people first, and their disability second. It shouldn't be "autistic people". It should be "people with autism". This is true in all disability categories excluding deafness and sometimes blindness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.56.99.40 (talk • contribs).

I agree. Feel free to go through and change those if you wish. V-Man737 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a very controversial issue. Some people prefer "people with autism" and some prefer "autistic people". Q0 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I should also say that there are descriptions of this controversy in wikipedia articles Autism#Terminology and Controversies_in_autism#.27Autistic.27_vs._.27Has_autism.27 and Person-first_terminology#Criticism.Q0 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the old, 'coloured people' versus 'people of colour' argument. The first was regarded as denigratory and the second is just plain ambiguous. Use both throughout the article. If this gets PC'd to death it will take up valuable time and the issue will never be resolved. I did special education as well and I have seen this debate for maybe 4 decades--it never stops. Let's not go there. Use both. Malangthon 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
People with autism, kinda like people with AIDS. Just because you're told to say it one way doesn't mean that's the only way to say it. The people who believe that autism is a part of who they are prefer autistic people, while others believe it is a disability that can be cured prefer people with autism, as in it's not an integral part of the person. I'm with Malangthon on this in that since both are recognized (depending on who you talk to), both should be used. --James Duggan 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it means anything, I have severe ASD, and I am high functioning in communication. If you want it from the horse's mouth, then here it is... We don't really care what you call us, we're just the same as anyone else. You can call a brick a diamond if you feel so inclined, it doesn't really do anything but make the intent more difficult to decypher. The best words to use are the simplest, and most to the point. "Autistics" is fine for all I care. As long as you understand that we're people on the inside, then you can say whatever you want. ReignMan 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

~points to what James Duggan said~ Yes. For the record, I am autistic, and I insist on being called an autistic person, not a person with autism. I agree with ReignMan that it should not matter as long as we are respected as people; I don't really care whether you call me an Indian or a Native American, for isntance. However, language shapes thought and right now there are an awful lot of people out there who would like to make us "persons without autism" by any means necessary. That's the politicized or power-dynamic reason for saying "autistic person". Look back a few years and you will see that there were people who honestly believed that Indians should be regarded as "persons with Indian" (they didn't say it that way), and that they could take the Indian-ness out of us in those schools. --Bluejay Young 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Facial features

This page [12] says there are some facial features peculiar to autistic persons. I don't know if this information is true or not, but was wondering if anyone could comment on this. The features are regarding the corners of the mouth and the shape/position of the ears. --DanielCD 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever heard of the big head thing, nothing about facial features. WLU 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Review of sources and needed citations

I hope we can use this space to look back at the article and note the areas that need to be supported by sources.If we keep the comments in the relevant section we will not have to hunt for them and commenting will be a little more straightforward.

Introduction

  • Paragraph 4 needs a source
"From a physiological standpoint, autism is often less than obvious in that outward appearance may not indicate a disorder. Diagnosis typically comes from a complete physical and neurological evaluation."
  • Paragraph 6 has no citation but it does refer to the section where it is sourced. I do not see this as a problem. Anyone know if this might effect the standard of the article?

All in all, this section looks well supported. Your thoughts? Malangthon 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

History

This section looks as if everything is supported by sources. Have I missed anything? Malangthon 12:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics

I reorganised this top section by making the paragraphs more distinctive for coherence.

  • Paragraph 1 has no source.
  • Paragraph 2 is sourced. The opening line rambles a bit by the way. Does it read fluidly to you?

"Individuals diagnosed with autism can vary greatly in skills and behaviors, and their response to sensory input shows . . ."

The comments on behavior is well delineated in the next paragraph, then there is nothing else said about skills and last it goes into sensory input. It just looks to me like it needs a rewrite.

Subsection on Key Behaviours

Fully resourced

Malangthon 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Subsection on Social Development

  • Paragraph 1 has no sources
  • Paragraph 2 has a source but it is hard to tell what is being supported by the source. This might need more sources or a rewrite.
  • Paragraph 3 is well supported.
  • Paragraph 4 seems to have the same problem as paragraph 2
  • Paragraph 5 has no source cited. If it is in the text already, this should be cited again. If not, does anyone have a source for this?

Malangthon 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Subsection on Sensory System

First the title is not really working. We are looking at food obsessions in the middle of the subsection for one thing. We also see a comment on coordination. This subsection could do with a rewrite for coherence as well as cohesion

  • Paragraph 1 no sources
  • Paragraph 2 is supported but is this the correct place for a comment on obsessive behaviour about food? Is ther a theory that explains this obsession with regard to the senses?
  • Paragraph 3 has no sources

Conclusion: This subsection need a good rewrite, it rambles and it is not well supported. Malangthon 12:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Subsection on Autism and blindness

  • Paragraph 1 is supported
  • Paragraph 2 is supported

Note: Who thought up the idea of using the phrase "Developmental trajectories"? That is journal-speak to be sure. Not something most folks would understand.

This could be merged with the subsection on the sensory system by the way. Malangthon 12:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Subsection on Communication Difficulties

  • Paragraph 1-5 No sources

Ironically, this is the most crucial issue of the entire article--the very crux of autism--and it is completely unsourced. There are sources used in other parts of this article that would serve. The Key Behaviours lists a number of these phenomena. Malangthon 12:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Subsection on Repetitive Behaviors

Absolutely no sources Malangthon 12:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Subsection on Effects in Education

Six paragraphs and one source.

Note: I think that this subject would be of great value to parents and educators. This section, from the perspective of it being an encyclopedia article, is of very high value. Malangthon 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

atheism

Is there any correlation between autism and atheism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phase Theory (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Why on earth would there be? --DanielCD 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Heaven knows it'd be useful for a pun. V-Man737 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure

There's this article from CNN you can click this link that discusses much about this "Autism" controversy. I'm not sure if it warrants to be mentioned on this article but I thought that you want a heads up on it. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is relevant but have we not included this information? Malangthon 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect "Frequency of autism" to "Autism (incidence)"

Please see Talk:Frequency of autism. aLii 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Worship of Autistic Children

I believe I read somewhere that in some "primitive" societies, autistic children are worshipped as gods or consulted as oracles. I don't know exactly where I read it, and I can't find any information with a Google search. I was wondering if anybody else had heard this and could possibly find some sources. Of course, I may not remember right (I do have a bit of a bias) or the source I'm thinking of was full of it. I'd really like to see more in the history section, to tell the truth, and this seemed like a decent place to start. Aljo 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone in its landmark article "The Kids with the Faraway Eyes" (8 March 1979 by Donald Katz) mentioned that one of the families told of having visited by a Native American friend whose traditional background held that autistic kids were "inspired". It is true that many Native traditions respect mentally ill and retarded persons, but there's probably been tons of bilge written about their place in the actual society and culture. For possible autistics down through history you might look up Paul Collins' Not Even Wrong. --Bluejay Young 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAutism_History_as_of_2007_February_18_6a12.html"