Talk:People speculated to have been autistic/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Bill Gates an autistic genius? How about a socially akward nerd.

, 10 September 2005 (UTC)I don't understand why this article is not considered neutral. I checked on the Internet and included a great deal of information for and against the claim that Newton and Einstein may have been autistic. Isn't that what neutrality is about? Since I wrote the article I have been given evidence that Autistics can have a sense of humour. I followed the Scientific method and modified the article to include this evidence. I hope Wikipedians are now satisfied.

The argument against is filled with disputes ("this claim is disputed") and such (who disputes that claim? Just saying "this claim is disputed may not be neutral... saying "some people dispute this claim" is much more neutral... it might also help to point out who those "some people" are or give an example). If you're going to have disputes in one side you should consider having it in the other also (which really means that its probably best the way it is currently organized to have the disputes in the opposite section or someplace else etc.). Hope that helps :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I should mention in general Newton could use a longer argument for, and the arguments in general could be lengthened a bit. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

"This claim is his own opinion."

This is both redundant, since he's the only one we're citing, and defensive as if his opinion was automatically invalid.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs fixing up

I think the article still needs some work. I went through and cleaned up some typos, some awkward phrasing, etc., but this is not yet up to a high standard, I think. There are too many "weasel words" like "There is speculation that..." Who speculated? And when citing Frank Klein... well, who is Frank Klein and why should we care?

Barbara Shack 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Who is Frank Klein? He runs this extensive website. Autism, Genius, and Greatness. Should we care? He's worked hard on his website. He is well informed. he understands the autistic community. I'm unsure of his objectivity. Please post a link to the reference. I don't know how to.
Barbara, I just added indents to your post above to clarify that this was your comment, not mine, since it was placed in the middle of my post and was sort of confusing. :) I didn't change anything else, though! I will post a link to the reference. It is not too hard -- How to edit a page includes information on various ways to link to refs, if I recall correctly. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Thanks for showing me how to edit. I've already done some new notes.
I noticed the new refs! Thanks for adding those! ManekiNeko | Talk 20:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have added references and cleaned up a bit. In reading the referenced articles I noticed that the text in this article seems way too close to the text in parts of the BBC and New Scientist articles, and I think that is also an issue that needs to be addressed, to avoid copyright violation. I would like feedback from other editors on this. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If he is quoted in one of the references below, post a link to that reference. In general, I think it would be helpful to cite specific references for the various claims on the page, next to the claims themselves.

Additionally, I deleted the external link that claimed to show that autistics have a sense of humor -- because it seemed to be posted to promote the view that autistics have a sense of humor, rather than to back up the content of the page. (If it had been discussing whether autistics have a sense of humor, I would probably have left it alone -- but it is just a random funny page by an autistic, and as so, it's both a non sequitur and something that was placed on the page to serve a POV.) "Since I wrote the article I have been given evidence that Autistics can have a sense of humour. I followed the Scientific method and modified the article to include this evidence." I think this is part of the problem -- you are doing original research to prove a point. The page isn't here to prove that autistics have a sense of humor, therefore the arguments they don't are invalid, yada yada. The page is here to present the two sides.

Basically, though, I think the page needs to be rewritten to provide more solid citations, at the very least. ManekiNeko | Talk 00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 13:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" Further, Glen Elliott believes that people with severe Asperger's syndrome do not have a good sense of humour as Einstein reputedly had. In any case Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as 'severe Asperger's syndrome'. If this is true it does not preclude the possibility of Einstein having had different autistic traits or a different type of autism."The above is a quote from the last paragraph. The external site is there as evidence against Glen Elliot's Contention.

That is my point -- it is there to support a POV, but not as a reference for anything on the page, and its topic is not related to the topic of the page. It's just, as I said above, "a random funny page by an autistic, and as so, it's both a non sequitur and something that was placed on the page to serve a POV." It really is leaning toward original research IMHO. Also, one other thing... could you sign your posts at the end of the post instead of the beginning? I'm finding it a little confusing to read the way it is now. Thanks. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)This article is more and more duplicating List of recognised people with autism spectrum disorders. Looks like the two articles should be merged.

A merge might be good. The title of this article bothers me, altho I can see that the speculation is sourced in some cases. Friday (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think the articles should be merged. The title of this one bothers me too. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have added templates to the two pages in question so people will discuss a possible merge. I also removed the humor link again because I do still firmly believe that it is a POV link that isn't directly related to the subject of this page. I would like other editors to contribute their thoughts on this matter, please. Thanks! ManekiNeko | Talk 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a POV link and close to original research too. i.e. what should be done in this case is linking to a site that argues why the POV humor site is funny, rather than simply assuming its funny. I hope that makes sense :\ (it's a bit confusing, I know - also, it should be ref/noted rather than an external link). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And, of course I agree with the merge since I originally proposed a merge :). Also, I agree with everything ManekiNeko pointed out :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Something needs to be done here. If the article is speculation, then it needs to be deleted. If it is not speculation then it needs to be renamed. But definitely one or the other. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is not speculative. It reports the speculation that others have done outside Wikipedia. Therefore, I do not believe the article needs to be renamed and the article is not original research. Q0 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

These are my comments made on the "List of recognised people with autism spectrum disorder page". I agree with the idea of merging the second list but not the first. I don't agree with the title of the article that it's being merged too. The term used "famous" is not neutral. This was a similiar point I made with getting this list renamed from notable people etc to recognised people. If it was called "recognised people in history who may have had autism" then yes, by all means merge it. Also using the term "autism" is only considering people who may have had autism. The term "autism spectrum disorder" covers both aspergers and autism. rjwd 09:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the title is not what it should be. But I am having trouble formulating a solid idea for how the two articles should either merge or link together at this point. I would really really like to see more feedback. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged Article

I have merged the article. Moved Blind Tom Wiggins to historical list even though he died in 1908, it was before the official classification of autism. And put the historical list in alphabetical order. Also made a few other changes. I'd like to hear people's feedback. rjwd 01:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

POV issue?

This paragraph is sort of bothering me:

'In any case Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as "severe Asperger's syndrome". If this is true it does not preclude the possibility of Einstein having had different autistic traits or a different type of autism. Others also are unconvinced and believe the two scientists’ personality quirks could have been caused by their high intelligence.'

I see the "in any case... if it is true..." bits as sort of trying to build a case against Elliott, which of course is not what we are trying to do here; we should just be reporting what he said. I would like to hear feedback from others on this. (Also, "others also are unconvinced"... what others?)

If it seems like I worry about this stuff a lot, well, I write academic papers, so I am always worried about this in the real world, too. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 20:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 13:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)If any Wikipedians have time, here is a list of people suspected of having autistic traits or autism. It could be worth checking them out and writing them up. Famous people with autistic traits

That list has no value whatsoever. It's a list of names with no discussion or explanation and many of the suggested names are simply absurd. Taz, the Tasmanian Devil? Mark Twain? Bertrand Russell? Henry Thoreau? George Bernard Shaw? Tony Benn? Keith Olbermann? Al Gore? John Motson? All utter nonsense and most of the entries are equally preposterous. Ben-w 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Man, I wish we had Taz on one of these lists. -Silence 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree the list shouldn't be included. It has next to no evidentiary value. I wish it actually cited sources for its info, or had some commentary.ManekiNeko | Talk 08:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that "The case that Albert Einstein and Newton were not autistic" is too POV orientated. The case that they were clearly sets out the evidence while also carrying some speculation, whereas the case that they weren't sets up the arguments then attempts to provide refutations. That section is supposed to be "Case for, case against", not "Case for, More case for in the form of rebuttal".

The whole bloody article is ridiculous beyond words. Ben-w 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Imprtant Ommission

Only a person's close friends or family, or therapists, are likely to be able to judge whether (s)he can be diagnosed with autism or Asperger's syndrome (AS). But it is illuminating to learn of people with similar characteristics to ourselves, especially when those people are successful or well-known.144.139.87.135

Anyone opposed to changing the title?

It should be Speculation of famous people who might be autistic. The "has autism" terminology, although common, is offensive considering there is a simple alternative. Neurodivergent 19:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your suggested change. Q0 19:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I strongly oppose not changing the title. The current one's awful. I also think your proposed title is only very slightly better; the "autistic/having autism" issue is one of the less important ones, more significant ones being:
  1. the use of the POV (and totally unnecessary, that something is only mentioned on Wikipedia if it's especially noteworthy is assumed, and should at most be mentioned in the article text, not the title!) term "famous"
  2. "speculation of people" is an amazingly awkward phrasing. It should be "people speculated to have been autistic", or similar.
  3. "people who might have autism" implies that everyone listed has to still be thought to have it, meaning that everyone listed here must be currently alive. "people who might have had autism" or "people who might have been autistic" would allow for people like Einstein and Newton, who aren't autistic zombies. Of course, then it wouldn't allow for current people—but should this page really include people who are modern, well-tested diagnoses as though they were the same as idle speculation regarding long-dead people hundreds of years after the fact?
  4. Why does this article even mention "speculation" when it lists people who are almost universally believed to have autism in addition to the historical post-mortem speculative diagnoses?
So, why not just "People speculated to have been autistic", or "Noteworthy people" or "Historical figures" or whatever? -Silence 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree that the title is (and has been for a long time) problematic. I like your suggestions, with the exception that if you just have the article titled "People speculated..." that lots of people will start adding completely non-notable people to the list. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Some ideas for new title:
"Notable people with autistic traits"
"Possible autism of famous people"
"Famous people claimed to have autism"
"Famous people thought to have autism"
"Famous people - possibly autistic"
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 09:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
No. I disagree that we need "notable", "famous", "noteworthy", or any other POV term abstractly implying importance or relevance to this list. If someone is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article, he's probably noteworthy enough to be mentioned, no? So it will be easy to spot the people who shouldn't be on the list, as they'll lack articles (though some noteworthy people don't have articles yet, of course). Furthermore this article is no more prone to inappropriate additions than any other article that doesn't mention "notable", but just implies it, as all Wikipedia articles and lists do. Just as many of those articles do, we should probably mention it at the top of the article, and certainly not mention it in the title. See: List of people believed to have epilepsy, List of Europeans, List of Eagle Scouts, List of people who were cremated, List of people who have disappeared, List of virgins, List of World War I veterans, List of Christians, List of deaf people, List of sculptors, List of suicides, List of people by name, List of Cubans, and hundreds more. -Silence 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL. I guess you're right. Scratch famous/notable from my examples above.
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Then, of your above examples: "people with autistic traits" sounds like an interesting and relatively neutral way to say it, though it might also make the article too broad (doesn't almost everyone have some trait or another associated with a form of autism? autism's a very broad spectrum disorder, you know), and could still be disputed on the basis of "X didn't have autistic traits!"; "possible autism of people" is just too weirdly-phrased; "people claimed to have autism" sort of works, but would probably offend due to the people listed here who have been diagnosed with autism today (and thus are no more "claimed" than any mental disorder diagnosed today is claimed) with its implications of uncertainty, so again, keeping the historical speculation and the modern diagnosis in the same page causes lots of problems—also, if we're going with "people claimed", why not go with something a bit more specific, like "people speculated" or "people purported"?; "people thought to have autism" is pretty much the same idea, with the same problems, but with the additional problem of making it sound like a general consensus of who is autistic rather than certain people's theories and claims, no good for Newton and so on, and also both this and the last one use "have autism" rather than "be autistic", which I thought was the problem this conversation originally proposed to fix; "people - possibly autistic" - hahaha. no. :D "possibly autistic people" is a bit tempting, though. But it would be difficult to clarify exactly how "possible" someone has to be to be listed; everyone is "possibly autistic" (and possibly not autistic, for that matter), after all; the difference is a matter of degrees. Also, the pluperfect problem plagues many of the above suggestions. But I'm willing to let that slide if we fix the other problems; most people probably won't be bothered by a little tense scrambling, not being grammar freaks. -Silence 11:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
How about one article for List of autistic people (subdivided by specific form of autism where possible, since saying "autistic" alone means very little), and another for People speculated to have been autistic with non-confirmed entries and the Einstein/Newton debate there? -Silence 11:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the list of people known to be autistic used to be separate from the speculation of Einstein and Newton. Since then, the two articles were merged. I think it was better before, when they were separated. Q0 11:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people for more ideas for a new title. One article about unconfirmed beliefs: List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder.
Anyway, here are a few more suggestions:
People who met criteria for Aspergers
People who appeared autistic
People suspected of having Aspergers
People who probably had Aspergers
People who may have had Aspergers
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Those names are problematic too. "met criteria for Aspergers" and "appeared autistic" are very disputable, "suspected of having Aspergers" makes it sound like a crime, "probably" is POV too, and "may" is meaningless (everyone may have Asperger's). Also "Asperger's" isn't a type of autism, and I think that if we get any speculation that is for a different type of autism, we should accept that into the page too, to keep the scope broad and thus help the page expand into a full-length article.
I still say we need a name like "People speculated to have been autistic". "People believed to have been autistic" is acceptable, but not as good as "speculated", in my opinion, because it suggests wide belief (i.e. "most people think X had Asperger's"), rather than just noteworthy speculations. Does anyone have any problems with that name, for starters?
And since we agree that the list of autistic people should definitely be separated from the speculation of possibly autistic people, I suggest we make that separation immediately and then continue discussing where, exactly, to move this page, with the process uncomplicated greatly by clarifying exactly what the page's intent is. -Silence 16:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"People speculated to have been autistic" is definitely an improvement on the current title.  :)
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 19:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Sorry to edit someone else's post, Becca, but there was a dangling tag that was causing the rest of the page to be very very tiny. Ben-w 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Speculation

The nonsensical page that I previously deleted references to was restored. I have deleted references to it again because it has no value whatsoever. It is a four-year-old webpage on a free hosting service that provides no evidence, discussion, or details of the speculation. It just lists names, many of which are as out of place on it as they would be on a list of Liechtenstein tennis players.

It is not acceptable to list a series of names and say "people have speculated" that so-and-so is autistic. Nor is it acceptable to point to one dubious source such as that and claim that as evidence of speculation. To list a name, provide evidence that there has been serious speculation by someone whose opinion on the subject carries some weight. The examples given under the first heading do this. The discussion of Einstein, Newton, and Gates make it clear who is speculating and why. But by listing everyone in the world -- including the laughable examples of Bob Dylan, Stephen Fry, Mark Twain, and Michael Palin -- this page loses all semblance of credibility. Ben-w 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If Dick Morris makes statements in his own autobiography, isn;t that an adequate citation? Please advise what is if that isn't?

Original research

I am concerned that original research is being done on this page. People should not add their own speculation. Even if people add arguments, I still think it is against Wikipedia's rule against original research. Entries should only be added if there is an external source where speculation takes place. Q0 07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tense

I noticed the tense of the article's title is in the past as opposed to the present: it is people speculated to have been autistic instead of people speculated to be autistic. Is there any reason for the title to be past tense instead of present tense? It seems like present tense should be the default tense. If there are no objections, I'd like to consider changing it. Q0 01:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove word 'speculative' in title

I think the title needs to be renamed to remove the word 'speculated' in the title. I think that word is confusing people into believing that the article itself is intended for speculation, when it is actually intended that it report speculation that has been done by autism professionals, journalists, the autistic community, etc., and the controversy that has been generated by this speculation. I would like to suggest a new title that has the word controversy in it instead of a varient of speculation; Perhaps a new title like Controversy about autism status in famous people. Q0 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

URL markup

I am having trouble including the following refernce in the article: http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's Syndrome.htm . It needs a space in the URL, and when I tried replacing the space with a plus sign http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's+Syndrome.htm it did not work, even though it seems to be convention to use the + instead of a space in URLs. When I try to include a space in the URL with wiki markup it doesn't come out right, see my tests in the Wikipedia:sandbox: [1]. Q0 10:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Try using http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's%20Syndrome.htm. Shadowoftime 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That worked. Thanks. Q0 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

Thanks for the Wittgenstein quote, user:PiCo.

Charles Upham

I was wondering if anyone shares my view that Charles Upham might have had Asperger's syndrome. I get this impression from General Sir Peter de la Billiere's book "Supreme Courage" on account of many mentioned things e.g. his staring glaze, mood swings, constantly being in his own little world etc.

John Lennon

I have a thought that John Lennon may have been autistic or AS. According to the book John Winston Lennon Volume 1, 1940-1966 by Ray Coleman, Lennon struggled at school and was obsessed with disabled people. He was also known for his eccentric behaviour patterns and had dyslexia.--Percussion

Your personal definition of autism is, then, meaninglessly broad enough to include every single person on the planet. Ben-w 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh, Ben... is your personnel deafinition of ecenttric, obbsessed and dylsexic broad ennough to includ evry single person on the planet? I thought that only a few of us are eccentrick obsessed and dyslexicc. At least, when you are ecenttrec, obbsessed and diclexic, thats the way it feels.... or doesn't it? O r maybe yore not ecksentric, obssesed and bislyxec enough to know that?

--Amandajm 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

David Blaine

I don't know much about David Blaine, but I was wondering if he has been speculated to be on the spectrum. Two things stand out: - his stunt involving an ice block (many people with A.S. including myself are extremely tolerant of extremes of temperature) and his monotonous-sounding voice (another giveaway trait).

The techniques that magicians use rely on precisely those empathic social skills which people with autism and A.S. lack. In general, if people would stop looking for one or two traits which may or may not correlate with autism and working from there, and ask instead whether the person displays the attributes which define it. Also, the idea that toleration of extremes of temperature may correlate with A.S. means nothing in this case as Blaine is a magician, doing a trick. Ben-w 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AS, anybody?

Yeah, lots. To suggest that someone like Bob Dylan or John Lennon and so on, may have or had AS is not mere idle speculation..

I have read in newspapers, journals and so on, speculation as to the number of children who appear to have or have been diagnosed as having AS. The number appears to be increasing. the question is asked why? It is my opinion that the simple explanation is that there is mauch better reconition of the syndrome than there was fifty or even twenty years ago. I am related to one patently autistic adult who doctors refused to diagnose as autistic because he spoke. In fact, his facility for language was brilliant.

I now no that I am AS. It took me fifty years to discover that fact about myself. I am mildly AS, as may or may not be apparent from my communication. Yes, I do have a sense of humour.

Looking around, and back to my school days, I see a long line of friends who to me, now, are obviously Aspies. Never diagnosed, but always at odds. I would defend the case for Newton, and Einstein and many many many more of the world's brilliant people as being AS. In fact I would go so far as to say that genius and Asperger's Syndrome probably go together more often than not.

--Amandajm 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a complete lack of evidence-based scientific rigour to this observation. Ben-w 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a complete lack of evidence period. I just don't buy it. A few years ago, speculation was rife that all those people had Tourette syndrome. Then it was ADHD. Whatever happened to "intelligent person that just has a few quirks"? Of course many autistics are passing for, or thought to be by others, intelligent people that just have a few quirks. But that doesn't mean all such people are autistic. --Bluejay Young 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When was the conference?

It says "Furthermore, at a recent conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, evidence was presented that suggested Simon Baron-Cohen's previously held "theory of mind" hypothesis for autism was incorrect." The word "recent" is vague and should be replaced by the year or date it took place. (I've never believed in theory of mind anyhow; I'm autistic, and I learned how people think by watching TV as a kid.) --Bluejay Young 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown was semi-sarcastically suggested to be autisitc.[2][3]. Should this be included, and if so how? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 08:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Case against section

The entire second half of the "case against" section doesn't seem to have many references, and often makes claims that any autistic person could tell you face to face is utterly untrue, for example: As the concept of "mind-blindness" in autistics originates in the idea that they have no "theory of mind" -a means of perceiving the existence of others - this would also seem to invalidate an argument against Einstein's alleged autistic tendencies. Autistic mind blindness does not mean they "cannot percieve the existance of others", that's the same kind of theory that co-existed with Refrigerator mothers. (What autistics lack is a lack of insight into the motivations of others, they're often acutely aware of the existance and feelings of others)

Other examples try and ride over the top of the arguement, for example In any case, Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as "severe Asperger's syndrome" - Assumes that removing severe Aspergers from the picture also removes any possibility he had mild Aspergers

Another prime example of poor and unsubstantiated logic is: Some researchers believe that one of the signals that a person is autistic is that they are "mind blind". That is, have difficulty inferring information about the intentions of others. In contrast, Einstein's views on politics were sensitive and sophisticated. - not only it is an unreferenced statement, but there's plenty of examples that show very sophisticated political discussion amongst Aspergers: ie. [4] [5]

I'd rather not go making major edits since I'm unregistered at the moment, but I figured that someone may want to think about adding citations to the case against if there really are any good ones.

88.16.51.235 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Ryuujin

What a stupid article

As if a single person here was qualified to make such judgements and even if they were its original research or at best repeating the speculations of other trivia fans. 210.239.48.141 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)