Talk:Autism spectrum
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. |
Article policies
|
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 |
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. |
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:
Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between vaccination and autism?
A1: This association has been researched, and is mentioned in the page - specifically with some variant of the statement "there is no convincing evidence that vaccination causes autism and an association between the two is considered biologically implausible". Despite strong feelings by parents and advocates, to the point of leaving children unvaccinated against serious, sometimes deadly diseases, there is simply no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the two. Among the organizations that have reviewed the evidence between vaccination and autism are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (United States), Institute of Medicine (United States), National Institutes of Health (United States), American Medical Association, the Cochrane Collaboration (British/international), British Medical Association (Britain), National Health Service (United Kingdom), Health Canada (Canada) and the World Health Organization (international). The scientific community took this issue seriously, investigated the hypothesis, designed and published many studies involving millions of children, and they all converged on a lack of association between autism and vaccination. Given the large number of children involved, the statistical power of these studies was such that any association, even an extremely weak one, would have been revealed. Continuing to press the issue causes unnecessary anguish for parents and places their children, and other children at risk of deadly diseases (that disproportionately harm the unvaccinated).[1][2][3] Q2: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between thiomersal, aluminum, squalene, toxins in vaccines?
A2: Thiomersal has also been investigated and no association is found between the two. Vaccines are heavily reviewed for safety beforehand, and since they are given to millions of people each year, even rare complications or problems should become readily apparent. The amount of these additives in each vaccine is minuscule, and not associated with significant side effects in the doses given. Though many parents have advocated for and claimed harm from these additives, without a plausible reason to expect harm, or demonstrated association between autism and vaccination, following these avenues wastes scarce research resources that could be better put to use investigating more promising avenues of research or determining treatments or quality-of-life improving interventions for the good of parents and children.
Specifically regarding "toxins", these substances are often unnamed and only vaguely alluded to - a practice that results in moving the goalposts. Once it is demonstrated that an ingredient is not in fact harmful, advocates will insist that their real concern is with another ingredient. This cycle perpetuates indefinitely, since the assumption is generally a priori that vaccines are harmful, and no possible level of evidence is sufficient to convince the advocate otherwise. Q3: Why doesn't this article discuss X treatment for autism?
A3: For one thing, X may be discussed in the autism therapies section. Though Wikipedia is not paper and each article can theoretically expand indefinitely, in practice articles have restrictions in length due to reader fatigue. Accordingly, the main interventions for autism are dealt with in summary style while minor or unproven interventions are left to the sub-article. Q4: My child was helped by Y; I would like to include a section discussing Y, so other parents can similarly help their children.
A4: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; despite how important or effective an intervention may seem to be, ultimately it must be verified in reliable, secondary sources that meet the guidelines for medical articles. Personal testimonials, in addition to generally being considered unreliable in scientific research, are primary sources and can only be synthesized through inappropriate original research. If the intervention is genuinely helpful for large numbers of people, it is worth discussing it with a researcher, so it can be studied, researched, published and replicated. When that happens, Wikipedia can report the results as scientific consensus indicates the intervention is ethical, effective, widely-used and widely accepted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can not be used to predict or promote promising interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. Without extensive testing, Wikipedia runs the risk of promoting theories and interventions that are either invalid (the Refrigerator mother hypothesis), disproven (secretin and facilitated communication),[4] or dangerous (chelation therapy, which resulted in the death of a child in 2005).[5] Q5: Why doesn't this article discuss Z cause of autism? Particularly since there is this study discussing it!
A5: 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. Q6: Why does/doesn't the article use the disease-based/person-first terminology? It is disrespectful because it presents people-with-autism as flawed.
A6: This aspect of autism is controversial within the autistic community. Many consider autism to be a type of neurological difference rather than a deficit. Accordingly, there is no one preferred terminology. This article uses the terms found in the specific references. Q7: Why doesn't the article emphasize the savant-like abilities of autistic children in math/memory/pattern recognition/etc.? This shows that autistic children aren't just disabled.
A7: Savant syndrome is still pretty rare, and nonrepresentative of most of those on the autistic spectrum. Research has indicated that most autistic children actually have average math skills.[6] Q8: Why doesn't the article mention maternal antibody related autism or commercial products in development to test for maternal antibodies?
A8: There are no secondary independent third-party reviews compliant with Wikipedia's medical sourcing policies to indicate maternal antibodies are a proven or significant cause of autism, and commercial products in testing and development phase are unproven. See sample discussions here, and conditions under which maternal antibody-related posts to this talk page may be rolled back or otherwise reverted by any editor. References
Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Autism:
External links
|
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 Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Autism spectrum.
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
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. |
Article policies
|
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 |
Doc James edit war in prevention section
Ah, the edit-warrior Doc James is in his element again!
Rubella vaccination does n o t prevent autism.
Rubella vaccination prevents congenital rubella syndrome, Doc James. And that congenital rubella syndrome can look like autism spectrum disorder and in some papers is called "atypical autism" is correct, yes. (It is pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, to be precise)
The sentence as it stands is gibberish.
If you would care to dig deeper and look at the literature, which I know is a very difficult thing for you to do, since you have been reverting careful edits in the field of my expertise (you deleted the page of antimicrobial resistance for example, remember) since 2013, you will see, that the statement in your reference (no 125) quotes a modelling paper (i.e. a math paper), which then quotes a paper from 1971 ! Chess S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1971 Jan-Mar;1(1):33-47. PMID: 5172438 DOI:10.1007/bf01537741.
I am, like you presumably, all for vaccination including MMR, and I think t h i s is where the wind of your stubborn persistence of this ONE sentence section (which is conflicting with WP:MOS btw) is blowing from, but this sentence is a poorly phrased overreach.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. The sentence is not "gibberish" at all. As far as I can see, it's a perfectly well-formed and grammatically correct sentence. Whether or nor it is adequately supported by that 2015 Lambert et. al. source, of course, is another question. But, as an expert in the field, you are probably better placed than most to properly judge. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a complete layperson and I had no trouble parsing it. If that helps. Millahnna (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies just seeing this now. References says "In fact, rubella is and should be considered a vaccine-preventable cause of autism." Reference is a Lancet review article on Rubella published in 2015.[1] Qualifies per WP:MEDRS, relatively recent. Exactly what is the issue? We do not generally interrogate our sources and determine ourselves whether or not they got it "right" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Um- there's no cause for autism so rubella vaccines neither prevent nor don't prevent autism. what was the final decision on taking out the incorrect reference?
Kizemet (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)kizemet
Autistic adults can’t live independently?!
“Not many autistic adults are able to live independently, though some are successful.” This is not at all true. With such a wide spectrum range a great many autistic adults live independently. I believe we need to strike this sentence or quantify it properly. “Not many” is much too vague. MereCat-K (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- At best, without a reliable source such a sentence reads as original research. However, I see the sentence is sourced, and I'd be curious to know what the source itself says. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello everyone. It’s not “can’t”, it’s “refuse”, because they didn’t get used. 138.229.19.202 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to fix this but my change was continually reverted by James. The article cited clearly states: 50.8% of respondents had outcomes in the fair to good range. Which is a MAJORITY. The article is clearly misleading - it's own referenced text is contradicting itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangibas (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I would support outright removing the sentence - the citation disagrees with it and I genuinely don't think it contributes anything worthwhile. I would consider "some autistic adults are unable to live independently" to be fair and accurate, at a compromise. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason not to go for that wording so have implemented it. Others should feel free to change it further or to continue discussion, but I don't think the original wording is supported by that citation. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the new DSM-5 Criteria & ICD-11 criteria it is depending on the support required by the person diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Condition. There are adults with an Autism Condition who thrive well in independence < and others who require either permanent or temporary supported or residential care settings, some of these may have an additional intellectual disability or have global learning difficulties however not always. They are agencies in the United Kingdom for example who offer supported living for adults with Autism or earlier diagnosis as Aspergers Syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejournals12 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Autism Speaks
Autism Speaks should absolutely be removed from this article. Not sure about y'all, but any "autism awareness charity" that treats autistic people like shit and talks about how we would be better off dead does not have the well-being of autistic people at heart.
Autism Speaks has advocated for giving children bleach enemas.
As a metaphor, the nazis were a "Jewish awareness group".
- Yup, removed them. Not sure if it will stay, but I hope it does.--Historyday01 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- is a valid charity and can not be altered due to personal opinions. if other charities required they can be listed. Wikipedia is a fact-checker not a personal opinion Ramage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejournals12 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020
This edit request to Autism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Concern surrounding the new definitions of Autism Spectrum Condition to DSM5 criteria involving sensory impairment as a characteristic and the redefinition of what is considered severe is now based on the amount of support needed and how severe those symptoms are, which relate to the support. Not having the update information could cause many people problems.[1]
Template:TheJournels12 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
prognosis: added source
I added a line and sourced an autistic mother's website about the reasoning why many adult autistics push back on "cure" language as its incredibly important since many disability organizations have addressed why that language is violent and ableist-- and its considered hateful. I am missing something for my reference in the bibliography for 163-- I can't quite figure out exactly what I'm missing/brain exhausted- will come back but if anyone is really good at the references- could they help fix it.
I can return with more sources if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizemet (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Biased sentence
"Controversies surround other proposed environmental causes; for example, the vaccine hypothesis, which has been disproven" Why is this included On the Earth page we dont see the equivalent sentence "Controversies surrounds the shape of the earth, weather it is a globe or flat"
The sentence should be changed to "It has been proven vaccines do not cause autism!
That reads better and makes much more sense.
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia 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
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- 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
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Redirect-Class Autism pages
- Top-importance Autism articles
- WikiProject Autism articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press