Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep/Rewrite Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum

[edit]

Appears to be original research. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and possibly rewrite The article was original research in 2001, but this research is my own research. Since then it has spread to a large part of the autistic community, and have probably influenced radical sites like AspiesForFreedom. There is also a link from their wikipedia. Even if the theory is considered to be controlversial, I think it does merit an independent article. Originally a link to the theory was part of both the autism page and the Asperger page but was deleted by people not liking the ideas. The theory have several thousand visits each month which means it is quite popular. --Rdos 15:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC
  • Delete or Massively rewrite and rename if the conjecture's creator can provide evidence that this is an actual defensible belief. If there is any actual scientific research, it's not apparent within the article. One cannot call this a "theory" as much as a conjecture, as it is a proposed answer unsupported, apparently, by any actual data other than hearsay and self-selected Web site surveys. I tried to remove the blatantly unsourced stuff... which doesn't leave much. FCYTravis 18:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Asperger's syndrome and Autism are each diagnoses of combinations of a wide range of behaviors with different causes, and are criticised as being vague and overdiagnosed. Both are characteristic of developmental delay. Furthermore, PubMed (a scientific journal search service) lists 0 hits for "autism neanderthal". Therefore, this is almost certainly false.
    • Comment Certainly controversial at best and quite likely false (or untestable and I'm an unreconstructed Popperian myself) but nevertheless I feel has achieved a degree of notability in popular culture that may justify an article. Dlyons493 20:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A problem is the testability. It is the large number of traits displayed by autistics that cannot be explained with any other consistent theory that is the best evidences. Somebody claimed above that autism has many causes, but this is not a supported theory at all. This follows more from a lack of a theory that could explain more than one trait at a time than from any supporting evidence. I've added a section with the best of the supportive evidences. --Rdos 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until and unless this is thoroughly referenced with authoritative sources, it is original research. Saying "massively rewrite and rename" is the same as saying "delete and start again". -Splash 20:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Google shows a lot of hits for this strange theory. Zoe 21:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Many of those "hits" are either mirrors of Wikipedia, someone's personal Web site or pages that have absolutely nothing to do with any such theory and just happen to contain the two words somewhere. FCYTravis 00:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, Travis, but that's just not true. The very first hit is titled "The Neanderthal theory of autism, Asperger and ADHD", the second is "Neanderthal Theory of Autistic Spectrum", the third is a blog copying the second, the fourth is a Wikipedia mirror, the fifth is several letters on the subject, etc. Zoe 04:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • That very first hit is an original research personal Web site. Thanks for proving my point. FCYTravis 04:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Travis, you didn't look very well. The first and second pages are not on the same web-page and wasn't written by the same persons. The first is mine, the second is "entropy".--Rdos 06:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • But this article is not original research. Zoe 05:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes it is. The mere fact that someone posted it on a Web site does not constitute published scientific research. I can post something on a Geocities site that says Wikipedia is a tool of the Nazis. That doesn't mean I could go start a Wikipedia page saying "Wikipedia is a tool of the Nazis, because this Geocities site says so." FCYTravis 05:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undecided- this seems to be a real theory that is at least referenced by secondary sources. See, e.g., here ("The causes and origins of autism and asperger's syndrome is a source of continuing conjecture and debate. Amongst several competing theories are the underconnectivity theory developed by cognitive scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, the Neanderthal theory, the extreme male brain theory by Simon Baron Cohen, the lack of theory of mind, and the Preoperational-autism theory, which states that autistic people are those who get neurologically stuck at the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where much of information processing is at a wholistic-visual level and largely non verbal and musical.") The article desperately needs to be cleaned up to refer to proper sources, but that's not a reason to delete it. Nandesuka 01:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nandesuka - the reference you mention is a copy of a previous version of the autism page here.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up to myself, on closer inspection most of the references seem to be riffing off of the original "rdos" site, so this might just be particularly well-promoted original research. The reference in The Doctors' Lounge has me intrigued, though. I'm going to do a pubmed crawl. If I can't find anything at all, I'll probably change my vote to delete. If Pubmed refers to it, I'll stick with keep. Nandesuka 01:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any pubmed references to this; I've come around to the point of view that it is original research. That being said, it's clearly a theory that has gained traction in some quarters. Is it worth preserving an article on the subject not of a scientifically supported theory, but of the fact that it has become notable as a theory? Thoughts? Consider that Intelligent Design has an article, and has a similar lack of scholarly credentialing. Nandesuka 02:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Intelligent design as 50 references. This has basically none. IMO, this present article, being OR is not useful to us and we should hope that someone will create a non-OR article in the future. We shouldn't leave OR lying around "just in case". -Splash 03:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Creationism also has several hits with PublMed, but like intelligent design, none of them gives any support for the ideas. Besides, there are many other things that are well-known in the autistic community that does not show up in PublMed. Try searching for autism+homosexuality or autism+culture. The first gives five hits, but none of them talks about a link between autusm and homosexuality. The second gives no support for autism as a culture. Yet there is an article on the autistic culture --Rdos 06:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to above, it is mentioned on the autism article talk page G Clark 01:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So all something needs to do to be included is to be mentioned on an article talk page? FCYTravis 04:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah - you should READ the talk page the first time this was decided to be removed from the Autism article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism/History_as_of_2005_August_8#Neanderthal_theory
Choice quote - "I removed the following paragraph since it is not referenced, not encyclopaedic, badly explained, and plain bullshit" Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ryan, you don't even appear to have read past the first page in the theory. It contains hundreds of references to published material. The only comment you had on the autism talk was "I'm tired but (2) is COMPLETE NONSENSE..." --Rdos 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I've seen are papers etc. TRYING TO BACK YOUR THEORY, not any mention of the theory itself being accepted by anyone - such as a major medical journal, etc.. That is the definition of original research. Not only that but many people have already pointed out holes in your theory that you could drive a truck through Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is accepted by a considerable amount of people in the autistic community. As for the holes, I have no idea what you are talking about. All you told me was that autistics did not communicate better with each others, and I know this is not true from personal experience as I'm self-diagnosed Aspie. --Rdos 18:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not appear to be a creditable scientific theory, but only original research. As to Nandesuka's point, I think ID deserves coverage as a popular, if unscientific theory, but this one appears to be neither. I also find nothing at all on PubMed. The Doctors' Lounge mentions the "theory" only once, and almost looks cribbed from Autism. Unless there is evidence that anyone takes this seriously in scientific circles, it's just OR. Bikeable 03:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. This article will need quite a bit of work. This seems to be an actual theory with some, albiet limited, support. The support needs to be explained better, and the intro must be reworked, along with everything else. Better sources can be found as well[1], as this looks a bit like WP:NOR.Voice of All (talk) 06:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article just does not have enough credibility. No secondary research has been done, only OR and blog sites explain it at all. A few other small sites briefly mention it.Voice of All (talk) 18:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean their claim about autism being more common in Caucasian males? Unfortunately, it does not seem to be backed up by any source. However, this is well-known in the autistic community and have been discussed at various forums. --Rdos 09:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A self-selected group of autistic Internet users is by definition likely to oversample Caucasian males, as they represent a disproportionate number of Internet users. Saying something has "been discussed at various forums" is not scientific evidence. FCYTravis 16:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know this is not scientific evidence, but since there is no other available study I'm aware of, it is the only available indicator. We are not taling about a tiny overweight here, but perhaps one Aspie Internet user in a hundred or less is black.--Rdos 17:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, according to my link above at World History:
Amongst several competing theories are the underconnectivity theory developed by cognitive scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, the Neanderthal theory, the extreme male brain theory by Simon Baron Cohen, the lack of theory of mind, and the Preoperational-autism theory, which states that autistic people are those who get neurologically stuck at the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where much of information processing is at a wholistic-visual level and largely non verbal and musical. This also addresses the issue of the theory of mind where children at the pre-operational stage of cognitive development have not attained decentralisation from egocentrism.
This is about all I can find on this theory...Voice of All (talk) 18:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • Rdos, the article as it stands reads like a paper arguing for the theory; at least, a paper in dire need of a copyedit. Regarding Travis' complaint, the original wording approximated to "do you know any non-white Aspies? No? Thought not," and although it has improved significantly since then, it's replaced silly wording with weasel wording. "X is widely-known amongst enclosed community Y" is not enough proof for an encyclopaedic article, nor should it be offered as "evidences" for a scientific theory. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, you are right. I removed this again. I suppose the distribution of autistic traits between races could be left as a prediction that can't be confirmed or rejected right now.
  • Weak delete unless rewritten and fully sourced. -Sean Curtin 20:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Delete!!!! Original research being pushed by the person behind it. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said by the person that promotes pseudoscience Sensory Integration Dysfunction on the autism page and not even has the good manner to comment the reversal on the talk page! --Rdos 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I did just comment. You removed a vital wikilink that many professionals agree is part of autism. Also, THIS is pseudoscience, not SID, which is backed by many professionals (people with doctorates etc.) and organizations. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Sensory Integration Dysfunction, which is also nominated for deletion, ranks just as much as pseudoscience and original research as my theory does. There are no meaningful hits in PublMed for it, and thus according to this page, it should be deleted from WP. As for it's acceptance by doctors, if there aren't any meaningful research on SID on PublMed, it shouldn't be accepted. The *treatment* for oversensitivity has some merit. The theory has not --Rdos 18:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a look at links like http://ericec.org/faq/sensinte.html, SID has been published in many medical journals already... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ryan, you are confusing the *treatment* with the theory of SID. The journal articles you talk about are the treatment and not the theory. The theory is an after-construction to explain why the treament works which most likely is wrong. The idea you support is the pseudoscientific theory of SID when you promote retaining this on the autism page --Rdos 19:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Neanderthal_theory_of_the_autism_spectrum&oldid=1138849387"