Jump to content

Talk:Autism spectrum: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 169: Line 169:
: https://radicalcopyeditor.com/2017/07/03/person-centered-language/
: https://radicalcopyeditor.com/2017/07/03/person-centered-language/
: https://www.thinkinclusive.us/why-person-first-language-doesnt-always-put-the-person-first/
: https://www.thinkinclusive.us/why-person-first-language-doesnt-always-put-the-person-first/
: The AutismSpeaks Twitter account also did a recent poll that reflects my experience: [[https://twitter.com/autismspeaks/status/1153347990452658178 here]]. Not scientific, of course, but if you read the replies, you'll get a range of autistic (and non-autistic) people's responses. --[[User:Anomalapropos|anomalaproos]] ([[User talk:Anomalapropos|talk]]) 13:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
: The AutismSpeaks Twitter account also did a recent poll that reflects my experience: [https://twitter.com/autismspeaks/status/1153347990452658178 here]. Not scientific, of course, but if you read the replies, you'll get a range of autistic (and non-autistic) people's responses. --[[User:Anomalapropos|anomalapropos]] ([[User talk:Anomalapropos|talk]]) 13:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


===Discussion===
===Discussion===

Revision as of 14:27, 1 August 2019

Featured articleAutism spectrum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
December 17, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Active editnotice

Suggestion to merge article

Hi! I'm new here... But I just want to suggest merging Autism into Autism spectrum.

I have just read a number of articles regarding Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Based on my research, I am able to state that:

  1. According to https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/understanding-autism-basics#1, it was previously called Autism, but it is currently called Autism Spectrum Disorder.
  2. According to https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism, Autism is also known as Autism Spectrum Disorder. They are used interchangeably and refers to the same thing. Also, there are many sub-types of Autism, because it refers to a broad range of conditions. Also, Autism is a Spectrum disorder (which is why it is used interchangeably with ASD).
  3. According to https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323758.php, ASD is an umbrella term, in it includes Asperger syndrome.

Thus, I conclude that Autism Spectrum Disorder and Autism refers to the same thing, just that the former is the latest version, and the latter is the older version.

BG5115 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC) ^[reply]

"In the DSM-5, autism and less severe forms of the condition, including Asperger syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified(PDD-NOS), have been combined into the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD)." I hope that this answers your question as in the past autism was defined narrowly. Ruslik_Zero 07:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autism rights movement

@Doc James: Only medical claims are subject to medical sourcing requirements. The only medical claim in this section is that vaccines do not cause autism: If this claim is not well-sourced enough for you, please find a source for it rather than deleting the entire section. Otherwise someone might accuse you of POV pushing and reverting under false pretense. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not meet WP:RS either.
This bit of text was already covered "The autism rights movement is a social movement within the context of disability rights that emphasizes the concept of neurodiversity, viewing the autism spectrum as a result of natural variations in the human brain rather than a disorder to be cured." so merged the ref up
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the problems in sourcing. I have now addressed them. If you have any more issues with sourcing in this section, please do not delete the text. Leave a template and I will fix the problem. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

The manual of style recommends identity first language for autism. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For diseases we use a person first approach. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect in the case of autism. The medical manual of style has this to say:
Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. The words disease and disorder are not always appropriate. Independently observed medical signs are not self-reported symptoms. Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom, which may imply helplessness: identifiers like survivor, affected person or individual with are alternate wordings. Many patient groups, particularly those that have been stigmatised, prefer person-first terminology—arguing, for example, that seizures are epileptic, people are not. An example of person-first terminology would be people with epilepsy instead of epileptics. In contrast, not all medical conditions are viewed as being entirely disadvantageous by those who have them. Some groups view their condition as part of their identity (for example, some deaf and some autistic people) and reject this terminology.
This is in alignment with the disability manual of style. Autism is an exception to the person-first rule. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before. You will need a RfC for such a change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: A brief scan of the archives seems to indicate that the original discussion made no reference to guidelines or studies, and consisted mainly of anecdotes. As I have pointed out, both the medical and disability manuals of style indicate that identity-first language is preferred for autism. If we must hold a vote before we can abide by guidelines, we should do that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Different people feel differently. Some people with autism prefer people-first language as they do not identify as their health condition. But regardless I have started the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How should those with the condition be referred?

How should we refer to those with this condition? We have a style guide and a manual of style that recommend slightly different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Person with autism

2) Autistic person

  • Support: Autism is explicitly stated to be an exception to the rule of person-first language in the disability style guide and is implied to be an exception in WP:MEDMOS. Additionally, This study ([2]) finds that the term "autistic" was endorsed by 61% of autistic adults, while the term "person with autism" was endorsed by only 28% of autistic adults. We should respect the preference of the autistic community. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikiman2718: In figure one of the source you linked, the only two results that really matter are the results for ‘person with autism’ versus ‘autistic person’ because the other results are not really relevant to how this article will be written and are not subject to the disputed terms. Unfortunately I have to say: the results show ‘person with autism’ is overall more favoured amongst those surveyed (parents, professionals, family/friends, ASD), except a slightly higher percent of individuals on the autistic spectrum preferring ‘autistic person’. I did spend a fair bit of time considering your opinion and the source. Therefore, I must oppose this option.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically the high acceptance of the term ‘autistic’ does not mean what you claim, it could easily mean a ‘person who is autistic’ rather than ‘autistic person’ — the opposite of your POV. In other words you are misrepresenting the source, in good faith. That result of 61% is therefore meaningless to how we edit this article and resolve this dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your interpretation. We should consider only the preference of autistics, as Wikipedia lets each group label itself. The other polls from the other groups should not be taken into account. The identity-first terminologies on which the study collects data include "autistic", "autistic person", and "is autistic". A quote from the study finds that autistics usually prefer identity-first language (here referred to as disability-first)
    The use of person-first language was the principal point of contention among community members. Professionals reported a clear preference for the use of person-first language (e.g. ‘person with autism/Asperger’s’), while autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms (e.g. ‘autistic’ or ‘autistic person’). This pattern of results was not wholly unexpected. Person-first language was initially championed to challenge medical and moral beliefs that define people by their disabilities, instead referring to them first as individuals and then to their disability, if necessary. In so doing, it focuses on people’s abilities and distinguishes the person from the disability (Blaska, 1993; Feldman et al., 2002; Foreman, 2005). Researchers, educators, clinicians, other health professionals and the broader public have long been schooled in the philosophy and the desirability of person-first language and so it is not surprising that very similar explanations for the use of such language were given by the professionals in our study.
    It is notable that the study itself uses identity-first language, likely in deference to its findings. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Autistic people like myself are rather offended by being called "Person with autism" rather than "Autistic person". For us, autism is not a condition, but part of our identity. Look no further to how other people say it in the autistic community! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • From time to time I see dating site profiles that mention autism and I have to say the large majority say something like and I have asperger’s or I have mild autism and similarly the people I have met in life would say similarly. I actually think it is fairly uncommon for someone to define their identity as being an autistic person. I do not believe you are speaking on behalf of autistic individuals/people with autism, rather you are giving your personal opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Autistic people have a majority preference for being described as autistic people, with major representative charities and research organisations respecting that and evolving their language to support. As autism is neurological and a lifelong developmental condition it is not a disease or illness, it's an intrinsic part of the self.
https://www.autism.org.uk/describingautism
https://www.autistica.org.uk/about-us/media-communications-guide
https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/#autism
https://ollibean.com/the-gymnastics-of-person-first-language/
People without autism do have an overwhelming preference for Person First Language, and tend to talk over the preferences of autistic people. That does rather tend to skew the debate.
157.203.254.3 (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I am an autistic person involved with the autistic community (not the "autism community" which consists mainly of parents and non-autistic professionals). The majority of people are know are in support of identity-first language. In fact, the majority of disabled people I know prefer "disabled people" as well. Person-first language is taught in academic settings, but this is contrary to the experience of anyone involved in advocacy.
https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
https://radicalcopyeditor.com/2017/07/03/person-centered-language/
https://www.thinkinclusive.us/why-person-first-language-doesnt-always-put-the-person-first/
The AutismSpeaks Twitter account also did a recent poll that reflects my experience: here. Not scientific, of course, but if you read the replies, you'll get a range of autistic (and non-autistic) people's responses. --anomalapropos (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • please wait for this discussion to be over[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MEDMOS quite clearly encourages using the term ‘people with autism’ whilst acknowledging some autistic affected individuals reject this description style. WP:DISMOS clearly encourages the use of the term ‘autistic person’. So these two guidelines conflict with polar opposite instructions to editors. This RfC is meaningless unless the point of this RfC is to amend one of the guidelines, which it is not. I suggest this RfC is null and void and should be scrapped and this discussion should occur on the relevant guideline talk pages with perhaps a new properly framed RfC started there.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well User:Literaturegeek we are sort of discussing which should be followed here. WP:MEDMOS is a manuel of style the other is simple a style guide. From what I understand the manual of style takes precedence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I now think that this RfC could take place on this talk page so long as both manual of style talk pages are notified of this RfC. I do see that you did in fact mention the style guidelines in your original RfC question. I think I missed that in my first read of the RfC and focused on the options, my bad. I think you should repost the RfC to address the reason Redrose64 withdrew the RfC and then notify each of the manual of style’s talk pages that are subject of this RfC. I will then choose which option to support now that I realise I misread the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could we compromise on some of this?
There's no single "correct" language here. Person-first language is offensive to some people; disability-first language is offensive to others. I think that we need less rule-enforcing and more thoughtfulness here. IMO we would be well-served to follow the real-world variations around this. The general approach in the real world seems to be:
  • Parents of young children use and prefer person-first language. This is reasonable because, realistically, young children barely have any sense of identity at all. Identity formation takes time and a certain amount of brain development, and even neurotypical three year olds are still working on the basics, like "I'm a boy (except that today, I'm a train)". Young kids on the spectrum may not even recognize their own names.
  • Some teens and many older self-advocates prefer identity-first language. (Some don't care.)
  • However, undiagnosed people and newly diagnosed people, even if old enough to form identities, haven't had time to form a sense of identity around autism yet. You can't get a label on Monday morning and have your sense of identity reconstructed by Monday evening.
  • People with the most severe disabilities shouldn't be assumed to have any particular sense of identity (as an autistic person or otherwise).
I suggest, therefore, that we follow this general approach for the article: When the article talks about young children, adults with severe disabilities, and anyone in the pre-diagnosis and diagnostic stages, let's use person-first language. When the article talks about advocacy, management, and adult life, let's use identity-first language. This model simultaneously recognizes the personhood of the people who haven't (yet) constructed an identity around autism, and recognizes the identity of the people who have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it generates editing disputes I feel we need an RfC to generate a consensus viewpoint that results in updates to the manual of style guidelines accordingly. We can’t get too distracted with pedantic political correctness stuff, it distracts from serious editing so an RfC needs to settle this once and for all and in an RfC you WAID could, perhaps, make a suggestion of how to resolve this and have it commented and voted on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the severe form of the condition rather than about Aspergers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classic autism is sometimes severe, sometimes not. But severity is irrelevant. What matters is the consensus opinions of how people in this group want to be addressed. We even use identity first language for blindness and deafness, as people in these groups typically prefer to be addressed this way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No single individual, however, get to speak for the group. And different people within the group have different opinions. It may also depend on the part of the world one is in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming to speak for the group. I've presented a study on the group's beliefs. An unless you have evidence that beliefs are different in other parts of the world, this study is the best indicator of group beliefs that is available. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have charities that use "people with autism"[4][5][6] Etc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Autism speaks has been widely condemned by the autistic community, largely because they fail to represent the views of autistics.[1] They have said some rather terrible things about autism, and they certainly do not speak for the autistic community. As for the other two charities you mentioned, I have never heard of them. On the other hand, the Autistic Self Advocacy network, which is run by and for autistic people, uses identity first language.[2] This is typical of the larger trend: those who try to advocate on behalf of autistics prefer person first language, while autistics themselves prefer identity first. In cases like these, Wikipedia has always let the group decide how to label itself. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the concept of "severity" applies to diagnostic criteria, not diagnosis, I'm unclear on the relevance here. When the only difference between Autism and Aspergers was rate of childhood language acquisition, it strikes me that having two different articles confuses the issue rather than contributes. I am conscious that there is a school of thought that continues to want to see Aspergers as different/ superior, but that doesn't reflect current understanding; either DSM5 or ICD11.
It's a little concerning that someone expressing such an outdated view of autism has such a desire to drive the narrative here.
157.203.254.3 (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all cases that I am aware of, Wikipedia lets each group decide by consensus the words used to identify them. Members outside the group don't get an opinion. This study[3] finds that identity first language is preferred over person first language by the majority of autistics. The "person with" terminology fails to achieve consensus in any group. Even among medical professionals, less than half endorse this terminology. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your source does not support your position, at least the abstract (have you got the full text?). It says the preferred terms are autism and Austin spectrum disorder which I assume the respondents would use that to say ‘I am on the autism spectrum’ or ‘I have autism’ etc. I am not seeing that source saying the majority of respondents wanting identity first language such as I am an autistic man.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have mechanisms to determine who is inside or outside a group nor do we really want those. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, how about we archive all of this and restart the RfC properly formatted this time? Otherwise this dispute will keep reading its head...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a link to the full text.[4] From the text, the term "autistic" was endorsed by 61% of autistic adults, while the term "person with autism" was endorsed by only 28% of autistic adults. The study also polls parents, friends, family, and practitioners, but we should defer to the preference of autistics, as Wikipedia lets each group label itself. @Literaturegeek: It is true that people with Asperger's syndrome tend to prefer the person first (with Asperger's), but this is only because the identity first terminology for Asperger's syndrome is "he/she is Aspergic". This is not of much importance as Asperger's is now a historical term. This discussion should be about "autistic" vs. "with autism". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note: Asperger's is a historical diagnostic category; it's not a historical identity. Identities don't go away just because someone changes the paperwork.  "Aspie" is still some people's self-identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only read the first page of that paper and can’t see those figures and other figures.?..--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why that is. I can read the whole thing. Are you using the second reference, or the first? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Must be because I am on an iPad, will try to access a regular computer soon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this will help:
    • Identity-first language includes "He's an Autistic" [caps optional but not unusual] and "He's an autistic person".
    • Person-first language includes "He's a person with autism" and "He has autism".
    • Most people use all of these forms at different times/in different contexts. I think that the most important part of that paper is this recommendation:
      • "For these reasons, some disability researchers caution against an overly narrow, rigid and formal set of guidelines regarding the use of language, especially when such guidelines might restrict progressive dialogue relative to disability and to autism more specifically (Mackelprang, 2010). Instead, they advocate the use of terminology that is context specific, although informed by investigations such as this one. For example, disability- first language can be used to discuss autistic people and the autism community. Person-first language might be used in some contexts, especially in some healthcare contexts, or when speaking to parents.
      • "On the basis of this investigation, we believe this kind of flexibility is suitable given the wide variety of preferences among those in the autism community. The fundamental finding of this research, after all, is that there are reasonable and rational disagreements between members of the autism community as to which terms should be used to describe autism."
    • That's what I think we should be doing: using all the forms, in appropriate contexts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      While I am not opposed to a degree of flexibility in language use, I am confused by the recommendation that person-first language by used when speaking to parents. The study clearly shows that parents prefer identity-first language over person-first. The only group that expressed a preference for identity-first language in this study was the practitioners (see polls for "autistic person" vs "person with autism" in figures 1, 2, and 3). --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you consider the method for the survey? First, the survey was passed around to friends-of-friends, in a sampling method that tends to reinforce biases and privileges the first respondents (a process that we'd condemn as a violation of WP:CANVAS if you tried to do that for an RFC here). Then they excluded all responses from people under the age of 18, or who didn't want to disclose their age, and anyone who claimed to not be residing in the UK. Fair enough for the UK thing, since they present it as only being about UK preferences, but why not listen to the teenagers, too? It's not the world's most definitive survey. And, more importantly for our purposes, it's just one survey. Other sources report other preferences.
      As for what parents actually prefer, I suspect that "parent who's got a teenager on track for university and independence, and who is active in advocacy organizations" will have a different view than "parent who is still reeling from last month's visit to the pediatrician". It would not surprise me if parents of young children and parents of adults (and near-adults) have different views. I should also point out that I label these as "person first" and "identity first", but some people see that latter item as "disability first". A parent who is overextended by the needs of a severely disabled child might put disability front and center, rather than either "person" or "identity". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't expect unanimity, only consensus. Is there any reason to believe that these results don't generalize to other parts of the world, or that the study has found an incorrect result? Can you present any data which contradicts the result? If not, we should rely on the study, which is the best source of evidence we have. Its result is in line with what I have read elsewhere. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted a notification of this discussion on the talk page of autism spectrum. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Network, Autistic Self Advocacy. "Disability Community Condemns Autism Speaks". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  2. ^ Network, Autistic Self Advocacy. "Autistic Self Advocacy Network". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  3. ^ Kenny, L; Hattersley, C; Molins, B; Buckley, C; Povey, C; Pellicano, E (May 2016). "Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community". Autism : the international journal of research and practice. 20 (4): 442–62. doi:10.1177/1362361315588200. ISSN 1461-7005. PMID 26134030. Retrieved 11 July 2019.
  4. ^ "[pdf] Autism, Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community, 2015 (131551) - WEST". www.west-info.eu. Retrieved 12 July 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

In the section Repetitive behavior, please remove the link to "sameness". It redirects to Identity (philosophy), which is a completely different concept. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Older sources

There are several claims about what is not known or understood about austism in the article. For example, "there is no known cure", "How this occurs is not well understood", "...it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by...", which are all backed up by sources that are a decade or more out of date. I'm not sure if these claims are still valid as stated or exactly how much has been learned in the last decade or so about this very active area of research, but if there are folks out there who are current on the latest research and could re-examine those claims, it would be well appreciated. Should those claims be treated with "As of" tags? Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should just update the sources. Those particular statements are still true. There is no available cure for autism. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism_spectrum&oldid=908865339"