Jump to content

Talk:Controversies in autism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anomalapropos (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 18 June 2019 (→Cure perspectives: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leepatlo (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rlstatton (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mymurphy2, Eisherfinski.

Evaluation

This article did cover controversies in autism which may influence neutrality of an article. I think especially in the vaccine overload section the author's language did sound more argumentative and attempting to persuade rather than inform that vaccine overload was "flawed." They did use sources athough I couldn't access the 14th citation backing up how multiple vaccines don't weaken the immune system. Instead of the author stating that this theory is "flawed", they could state something more like "the majority of the scientific community believe this not to be a cause of autism for these reasons..." I feel that the Thiomersal section was not given the same amount of attention as the other sections. For one, it jumps in talking about how the Centers for Disease control asked vaccine makers to remove it from Thiomersal, and doesn't give their reason for doing so and then talks about a study from 2 years before it was "banned". I also think they should choose their wording from "autistic individuals" or "autistic children" to "individuals with autism" and "children with autism" to allow more inclusive language. Calgalhil (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for cleanup

There is likely a good deal of salvageable content here, but it needs cleanup before its ready for primetime. PMIDs are needed on the citations to ascertain sourcing (there are good sources available for this content, but it's unclear if these are them). The section starts with mentioning the DSM, which is never defined or linked anywhere in the article. There is some unnecessary overquoting (that content can be rephrased). And, written like an essay, there is not a single wikilink in this content. Who says "immense amount of changes implemented"? Smells like anecdote or original research. And some copyediting is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the DSM

With the immense amount of changes implemented, there are clinical complications, concern, and debate. The consistency of the diagnoses as well as the reliability has been in constant question since the DSM-IV-TR, which is why the DSM-5 does not feature various subtypes. The removal of the subtypes allows the DSM-5 to become more simplified as clinicians do not need to spend resources and time decided what subtype children have. Because of the simplified nature of the DSM-5, ASD diagnoses can be made in a more timely fashion with less room for error. Also, having a, “single category of autism spectrum disorder results from data suggesting that the entire spectrum share a pathophysiological substrate and this classification is not expected to modify the prevalence rate but to make more clear the diagnosis” [1] In retrospect, without the subtypes, the diversity and heterogeneity that exist among ASD and particular individuals with ASD is not necessarily accounted for. For instance, a child with Asperger’s disorder who has an above-average IQ and a circumscribed interest in the French Revolution would receive the same diagnosis as a non-verbal child who spends his days spinning objects and flapping his hands” [2] Typically, there are negative perceptions that are associated with autism; therefore, those who have mild cases of autism, such as Asperger’s, will be more reluctant and to seek a diagnosis due to the fact that they do not want to be categorized under ASD .[3] Moreover, using the DSM-IV-TR criteria, it was found that a person who is diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder does not fully meet the criteria for autistic disorder. Although individuals with Asperger’s does not meet the criteria and are considered to have vastly different characteristics than autistic individuals, the diagnosis of Asperger’s has gradually become synonymous with autism. [4] Each individual diagnosed with autism may portray both similar and different symptoms that range in severity, by grouping symptoms, mild and severe, into one diagnosis category could be potential issues, especially with stigmatization and stereotyping. Receiving the label “autism” generates stigmas, stereotypes, and overall negative evaluations in the home, community, and school. It was found that the diagnosis of autism had a significant effect not only on the child, but also the family than the diagnosis of Asperger’s. This signifies the concerns about the label of autism having more of a negative repercussion and meaning attached to it versus the label of Asperger’s. [5]

References

  1. ^ Taddei, S., & Contena, B. (2013). Brief report: Cognitive performance in autism and Asperger’s syndrome: What are the differences?. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 43(12), 2977-2983. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1828-5
  2. ^ Vivanti, G., Hudry, K., Trembath, D., Barbaro, J., Richdale, A., & Dissanayake, C. (2013). Towards the DSM‐5 criteria for autism: Clinical, cultural, and research implications. Australian Psychologist, 48(4), 258-261. doi:10.1111/ap.12008
  3. ^ Kite, D. M., Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2013). Views on the diagnostic labels of autism and Asperger’s disorder and the proposed changes in the DSM. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1692-1700. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1718-2
  4. ^ Ghaziuddin, M. (2010). Brief report: Should the DSM V drop Asperger syndrome?. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1146-1148. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0969-z
  5. ^ Kite, D. M., Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2013). Views on the diagnostic labels of autism and Asperger’s disorder and the proposed changes in the DSM. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1692-1700. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1718-2

Is the section on Joint Attention actually relevant to this article?

So. I was reading this article, and frankly, I feel that the section on joint attention is irrelevant to the focus of this article on controversies in autism. I'm not going to do anything to it myself, because I frankly have no clue what it is (like it says, it needs cleanup) and thus have no clue where it could go (other than the page on autism), but I am of the opinion that it should definitely not stay here. Anyone? 108.50.51.25 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Controversies in autism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Controversies in autism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Controversies in autism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facilitated communication

Should there be a mention of so-called Facilitated communication? Wikipedia already has a pretty good article on it, but even though it's a discredited technique it definitely remains controversial and quite popular. But I don't know how to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.3.250 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Less Rhetoric/More Medical Support

This article provides information that could be used better in a different format. There are signs of persuasive writing, especially in the section "Vaccine Overload". This section uses the words such as firstly, secondly, etc. which should be changed to make the article seem like less of a persuasive matter. There are also lots of questionable sources such as The Huffington Post, BBC News, and other news websites/papers that are not guaranteed to be true or factually correct. More medical & scientific sources are required for this article to be valid. Newer articles and sources should be incorporated as well, since lots of articles or references shown are not recent. DGHUCEK (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be less biased and add more to genetics..

I feel like the article should present the "Vaccine Overload" section in a less biased manner. For example, the last sentence of this section is stating more of an opinion rather than the facts. Relating to this, more information should be added to the "Genetics" section with more scientific summaries of how autism relates or not to genetics so it does not make the genetics perspective appear trivial. Also, the phrase "autistic children" should be changed to children with autism. Leepatlo (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Be Less Biased and Update Sources

Parts of this article show very clear bias, particularly the section titled Vaccine Overload. Instead of explaining the issue and why people believe it, the article almost immediately jumps into discrediting this belief. The second sentence of this section calls this theory flawed, which shows clear bias towards one side of this issue. The next sentence begins with "Firstly", which isn't a very professional way to write an article, particularly one that isn't persuasive. Many of the sources for this article are from 2008 or before, and should be updated to accurately express current findings.Ndenoble173 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Article Critique

After reading this article, there is definitely some bias towards the idea that vaccines do not case autism. At the start of the article, several potential causes of autism are mentioned but the only idea that is thoroughly discussed is regarding vaccines. There is also bias terminology used such as "vaccine overload is flawed", "lack of evidence" and "conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not 'overload' or weaken the immune system". The bias makes it difficult for the reader to understand all controversies surround autism.

Also, when looking over the references at the bottom of the page, many of the citations are from sources from the late 1990s or early 2000s. In the past couple of years, there has been a lot of research regarding genetics and genes tied to specific diseases or disorders. Science is so fast paced that there is constantly research being done and journals, etc. being published about the findings. The references for this topic should include more recent sources. In addition to some of the sources being outdated, there were citations to many sources that are necessarily relevant. There were references to many articles about how celebrities feel about autism and vaccines. Hearing these opinions doesn't contribute learning more about the different controversies surrounds autism.

Mholty10 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added facilitated communication and fixed "Vaccine Overload"

Since facilitated communication is still a controversial topic on autism, I added a small section about it from different viewpoints. In addition, I tried fixing up a bit of the Vaccines section, specifically the Vaccine Overload paragraph, to sound less biased. Leepatlo (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Controversies in autism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cure perspectives

I've been conservative with editing recently, but I had some thoughts about the cure perspectives section that I wanted to add (without changing anything). I think they were moved over from the old medical model of autism page. Both perspectives should rely on reliable sourcing for their descriptions. There are some at Autism rights movement. I'm not sure the section is accurate, otherwise. It implies a black-and-white perspective on treatment and research, which isn't the case. I think most people who have an "anti-cure" perspective are for some medical research -- ASAN, for example, talks about research priorities. They don't talk about anti-cure, though. Also the "pro-cure" section doesn't mention genetic research at all, which I would think would be significant. I do still think this is trying to portray a divide that is already implied by there being an "anti-cure" perspective to begin with (the "mainstream" perspective on autism, for example, is the "cure/medical perspective"; and the counter-perspective is the autism rights movement and its general "anti-cure/social model" perspective). But it's certainly a controversy of some kind and does belong on this page. --Anomalapropos (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversies_in_autism&oldid=902448680"