| Revision as of 15:04, 11 December 2012 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,105 edits Removed for discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:17, 11 December 2012 edit undoParkSehJik (talk | contribs)992 edits →Adding "unusual behaviors" to complete the characterization list per the Lancet source: removing "personal anecdote" pointing to what is lacking in this articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
| ::: But what you've written is incorrect:<blockquote>Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, by restricted and repetitive behavior, or by unusual behaviors.</blockquote> The placement of the commas makes this sentence say that "Autism is characterized by unusual behaviors". That is not what the source says, and that is not what the diagnostic criteria are. There's a punctuation problem and an and/or problem. Our lead is now incorrect. In the future, will you please shorten your section headings? ] (]) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | ::: But what you've written is incorrect:<blockquote>Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, by restricted and repetitive behavior, or by unusual behaviors.</blockquote> The placement of the commas makes this sentence say that "Autism is characterized by unusual behaviors". That is not what the source says, and that is not what the diagnostic criteria are. There's a punctuation problem and an and/or problem. Our lead is now incorrect. In the future, will you please shorten your section headings? ] (]) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You are corect on my logic error. The Lancet definition logically implies "comm and soc and unusual" is sufficient, without "repetitive and restricted" or even "repetitive" being necessary, but that is not what DSM says. I will revert my logic error (unless you already did), but that leaves open the "or unusual behavior" from Lancet, whcih is the most up to date source. Lancet's 2009 def with "or unusual" ''adds'' to what is in the lede. What was in the lede I found was sourced in the corresponding article body statement ''"It is distinguished not by a single symptom, but by a characteristic triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior. Other aspects, such as atypical eating, are also common but are not essential for diagnosis"'', which is sourced by the 1999 "The Screening and Diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorders" saying ''"three core-defining features: impairments in socialization, impairments in verbal and nonverbal communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviors"'', which in turn rests ''entirely'' on the 1994 DSM, which is now almost 20 years old, and which itself relies on even older studies. I keep finding going back to 20 year old DSM as the only real source in various related articles, and the problems with DSM V, which is supposed to correct DSM IV's outdatedness, combined with statements about DSM V, troubling as I indicated at MEDRS. | ::::You are corect on my logic error. The Lancet definition logically implies "comm and soc and unusual" is sufficient, without "repetitive and restricted" or even "repetitive" being necessary, but that is not what DSM says. I will revert my logic error (unless you already did), but that leaves open the "or unusual behavior" from Lancet, whcih is the most up to date source. Lancet's 2009 def with "or unusual" ''adds'' to what is in the lede. What was in the lede I found was sourced in the corresponding article body statement ''"It is distinguished not by a single symptom, but by a characteristic triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior. Other aspects, such as atypical eating, are also common but are not essential for diagnosis"'', which is sourced by the 1999 "The Screening and Diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorders" saying ''"three core-defining features: impairments in socialization, impairments in verbal and nonverbal communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviors"'', which in turn rests ''entirely'' on the 1994 DSM, which is now almost 20 years old, and which itself relies on even older studies. I keep finding going back to 20 year old DSM as the only real source in various related articles, and the problems with DSM V, which is supposed to correct DSM IV's outdatedness, combined with statements about DSM V, troubling as I indicated at MEDRS. | ||
| :::::<small>(Re the "atypical eating" example of unusual behavior in the article body, I recall an incident about four years ago where I took an Italian psychologist of some notability out to California to see an autistic adult "with no output", to show him what "no output" meant, since I could not describe it in words. When we entered the group home, the adult with autism was picking up nearly microscopic dust particles from the polished harwood floor in the living room, and carefully ingesting them a speck at a time, in a kind of dance-like pattern moving around the room, and a set of arm motions difficult to describe. The psychologist, who came from a family with some dancers of note, tried to elicit "output" by "joining in", walking around behind the adult with autism duplicating the "atypical eating", to no avail. But he did manage to elicit output from me, a loud guffaw. There is something different about autism from anything I have seen, in the difficulty in verbally dscribing it with existing language, which makes this encyclopedia article ''particularly miss the mark'' on describing what autism ''really'' is, especially to a reader who has never met a person with autism. This article is more like what autism is ''to a psychiatrist'', not what autism ''is''. And I am a conservative neo-], so such statements like that do not often come from my mouth or keyboard.] (]) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC))</small> | |||
| for 2009 Lancet based, v 1994 DSM based, def for lede first sentence. ] (]) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | for 2009 Lancet based, v 1994 DSM based, def for lede first sentence. ] (]) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:17, 11 December 2012
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Autism spectrum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection Template:WP1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:
For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Autism:
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Environmental vs. Genetic should be clarified
I think the article should clarify that "environmental" includes the prenatal environment and also include the findings that heritability of autism is far less than previously thought. And there should be some emphasis on the likelihood that in many cases, the "environmental" factors which cause autism cna not be easily avoided. Some prenatal infection or maternal immune activation, and other factors which have effect WAY before vaccination or posnatal diet, chemical exposure, and so forth. The idea is not to scare people but get a more accurate article, the "90% genetic" stuff seems to be far out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.90 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please cite your sources for this assertion? Pretty much everything I have read from reputable sources as of late on the topic (ie: in the last 2 years) seems to be showing more and more consensus that heritability, not environment, is the primary cause, and that environment plays LESS of a role (if any) than previously thought. Snertking (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Your request seems reasonable, please dont' be too offended if I don't comply, the reason is the people who monopolize the article simply won't let in anything they don't agree with, so it's pointless. A study out of Stanford estimated about 50% heritable 50% environmental. Fraternal twin concordance for autism is WAY higher than siblings which should not be the case for "90% heritable" the article states. Huge gene association studies have found autism genes but do not seem to account for enough percentage of cases to get anywhere near "90%". The fact that siblings of autistics are 25 times more likely to be autistic actually supports the maternal antibody related autism "theory" -- only a theor now in the sense that evolution is a "theory", since it's been tested in more than one animal now, -- rather than genetic causes because the gene associations studies on autism in families dont' give you such high numbers, at least according to all I've read, where Fragile X is the most common genetic cause with only 1% of all cases. Environmental factors are huge, but the problem with saying that is that layman don't understand huw broad the term "environmental" is in this context. The article misleads people badly and I could gather the articles to prove that but those who dominate tthe editing won't let it in the article, so what is the point? I guess they will let it in after every ppregnant woman in the first world is getting prenatal testing for those causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.168 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Maternal Antibody Related Autism
There is now a review article on this. Dev Neurobiol. 2012 Aug 22. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22052. Maternal and fetal anti-brain antibodies in development and disease. Fox E, Amaral D, Van de Water J.
This should be included in the article. Maternal Antidoby Releated Autism seems to be the single biggest type. Although ALL genetic causes are far greater, any single one is far less common. It is very important for people who have already had one autistic child to know mothers can have these antibodies so they can get tested and know if they are likely to have another one. Really life changing information, and now it's in a review article so there is no reason to keep it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.10 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC) So, now I've got a review paper, but no one wil change the article ? After all the resistance I got to putting this subject in the article, based on "No Primary Sources:" when Misplaced Pages rules did not say that, this silence is very loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.168 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Honorific for Dr. Temple Grandin
There is a line that begins "Noted autistic Temple Grandin described...", and I was surprised to see that the word "person" was left out and her title "Dr." was left out of her name. I feel this sentence is disrespectful towards her and would much rather see it read "Dr. Temple Grandin, who has autism herself, described...", or something similar. This would give her the respect she deserves, both as a human being and a holder of a doctorate degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladian22 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we use honourifics typically. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- True! See: WP:CREDENTIAL. However, if you want to rephrase autistic into who has autism herself, please do so! Lova Falk talk 10:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to, but I can't because this article is semi-protected. The directions for Misplaced Pages semi-protected articles state that I should request any changes I think should be made on the article's talk page, so that's what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladian22 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I had thought that Grandin was one of those who dislikes person-first terminology, as many autistics do, but can't seem to find where I read that. I may be confusing her with someone else. ☮Soap☮ 23:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even when we mention Grandin, it is not important what she personally likes or dislikes. Instead we should go by the wikipedia guidelines. Lova Falk talk 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unknowledgeable Editors
The bad situation of editors who ae not up to date if getting worse.
The relatively new long lead to this TALK section includes one paragraph about cause of autism which contains the statement
"No ultimate cause has been found for autism. All indications are that it is a primarily genetic condition with a complex etiology that has to date eluded discovery. With thousands of articles published every year on autism, it is very easy to find at least one article supporting nearly any theory. Accordingly, we must limit the page to only the most well-supported theories, as demonstrated in the most recent, reliable, high-impact factor sources as a proxy for what is most accepted within the community"
"No ultimate cause has been found for autism" -- No, several causes have been found. Fragile X, Down's syndrome, a bunch of rare genetic conditions, maternal antibodies to fetal brain, a bunch of teratogens and teratogenic conditions.
The editors who keep out causes because they don't account for all cases are on the wrong side of the science. .\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.220 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Adding "unusual behaviors" to complete the characterization list per the Lancet source
From the Lancet source name=Levy already used multiply in the article - "Autism spectrum disorders are characterised by severe deficits in socialisation, communication, and repetitive or unusual behaviours". I added "unusual behaviors" to complete the lede first sentence. (There may be a subtle objection distinguishing "autism spectrum disorders" from "autism", but this distinction does not appear to be made elsewhwere when this source is used in this article.) ParkSehJik (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I have removed your excess citations on the autism rights movement. This is a broad overview article, you added citations to text that was already cited and the daughter article sociological and cultural aspects of autism is already linked and well cited. On "unusual behaviors", I think you've left the sentence muddled, but will let others decide. Also, please be aware that we sometimes don't use exact wording for avoidance of copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Better wording would be good, but leaving out the entire diagnostic category, "unusual behaviors", leaves out too much. ParkSehJik (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- But what you've written is incorrect:
The placement of the commas makes this sentence say that "Autism is characterized by unusual behaviors". That is not what the source says, and that is not what the diagnostic criteria are. There's a punctuation problem and an and/or problem. Our lead is now incorrect. In the future, will you please shorten your section headings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, by restricted and repetitive behavior, or by unusual behaviors.
- You are corect on my logic error. The Lancet definition logically implies "comm and soc and unusual" is sufficient, without "repetitive and restricted" or even "repetitive" being necessary, but that is not what DSM says. I will revert my logic error (unless you already did), but that leaves open the "or unusual behavior" from Lancet, whcih is the most up to date source. Lancet's 2009 def with "or unusual" adds to what is in the lede. What was in the lede I found was sourced in the corresponding article body statement "It is distinguished not by a single symptom, but by a characteristic triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior. Other aspects, such as atypical eating, are also common but are not essential for diagnosis", which is sourced by the 1999 "The Screening and Diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorders" saying "three core-defining features: impairments in socialization, impairments in verbal and nonverbal communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviors", which in turn rests entirely on the 1994 DSM, which is now almost 20 years old, and which itself relies on even older studies. I keep finding going back to 20 year old DSM as the only real source in various related articles, and the problems with DSM V, which is supposed to correct DSM IV's outdatedness, combined with statements about DSM V, troubling as I indicated at MEDRS.
- But what you've written is incorrect:
- Better wording would be good, but leaving out the entire diagnostic category, "unusual behaviors", leaves out too much. ParkSehJik (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Diffs for 2009 Lancet based, v 1994 DSM based, def for lede first sentence. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- DSM criteria are a stronger source than one author in a Lancet article. DSM does not say "unusual behaviors". Which, by the way, would raise a whole lot of different issues - it is not unusual for a child to show unusual behavior... Lova Falk talk 09:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why "unusual behaviors" is better explained in the text than in the lead. (Park, please confine personal anecdote to user talk pages ... trying to read small print doesn't make it any easier, either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed AS and mental retardation for discussion
I have removed this text to talk for discussion:
One of the criteria for Asperger's syndrome is that there is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development; which means that no one with Asperger's syndrome can have mental retardation.
Several problems:
- This is an FA, and if we decide we want to include this text, we can cite it to any number of high-quality secondary reviews-- no need to use behavnet.
- This is an FA, meaning raw URLs will lead to WP:FAR; even if we did want to use that source, please don't add raw URLs.
- There are prose issues-- even if we decide to use this text, the prose needs refinement.
- But more significantly, why are we adding this text here? This article is about classic autism, not autism spectrum, so the content is off-topic here anyway, and already addressed in the AS article. It's also only creating something that will have to be updated in May 2013.
My suggestion is that this text isn't even needed in this article. If others disagree, then at least it needs to be correctly sourced and rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Redirect-Class medicine pages
- High-importance medicine articles
- Redirect-Class medical genetics pages
- Mid-importance medical genetics articles
- Medical genetics task force articles
- Redirect-Class neurology pages
- Mid-importance neurology articles
- Neurology task force articles
- Medicine portal selected articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- NA-Class neuroscience pages
- High-importance neuroscience articles
- NA-Class psychology pages
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Redirect-Class Disability pages
- WikiProject Disability articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics