This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 25 May 2020 (→Cause and other changes: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:27, 25 May 2020 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→Cause and other changes: note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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  |
 | 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. |
 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:
|
 | 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 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 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): Jmarrs94 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jwang19, Vnguyen518, Efoxman42. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages: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. |
|
| 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 |
How should those with the condition be referred?
NO CONSENSUS No clear consensus supporting either style of referring to autistic people. As WhatamIdoing mentioned, there is no 1 accepted form of referring to them. It appears that the style generally depends on the context and the group. WP:MEDMOS does suggest "people w/autism", but it also recognizes that not everyone likes that label. Mgasparin (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
1) Person with autism
- Support we generally use person first language for health conditions. Not everyone identifies as their condition. "individual with" is supported by WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:MEDMOS says: "Many patient groups, particularly those that have been stigmatised, prefer person-first terminology... some groups view their condition as part of their identity (for example, some deaf and some autistic people) and reject terminology". We use person first language, but with some exceptions. We do not say "individual with deafness" or "individual with blindness", and we should treat "individuals with autism" similarly. If you want to use WP:MEDMOS to defend the term "individuals with autism", you may have to do that same for "individuals with blindness" and "individuals with deafness" for full consistency of stance. WP:MEDMOS implies that we should defer to the preferences of the group. A study () on group preference finds that "autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- support per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I don't see how "autistic people" or "autistics" is an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Reborn: That argument is good faith status quo stonewalling. No harm done. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but that type of argument is classified as stonewalling per the policy I cited in my initial comment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- My comment that I don't see how "autistic people" or "autistics" is an improvement is not stonewalling in any sense of the word. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling is not a policy or a guideline. It is a supplement page, essentially an essay. My comment is also not "status quo stonewalling." I don't see "autistic people" or "autistics" as improvements. Simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the point that this explanatory page is trying to make is that such !Votes do not add to the discussion and should not be counted in determining consensous. But it's not my place to decide if a supplement document is enforced here. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- My comment that I don't see how "autistic people" or "autistics" is an improvement is not stonewalling in any sense of the word. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling is not a policy or a guideline. It is a supplement page, essentially an essay. My comment is also not "status quo stonewalling." I don't see "autistic people" or "autistics" as improvements. Simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but that type of argument is classified as stonewalling per the policy I cited in my initial comment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Reborn: That argument is good faith status quo stonewalling. No harm done. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:Consensus is about the strength of the arguments, but RfCs, which this was, include votes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support this proposal per my comment here, which clearly shows that this source actually favours this option.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please also read my rebuttal. The source states: "autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms (e.g. ‘autistic’ or ‘autistic person’)." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support we don't use adjectival forms for other conditions ("schizophrenic people", "disabled people" etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
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 () 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- I disagree with your interpretation. We should consider only the preference of autistics, as Misplaced Pages 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)
- I'd offer a slightly different interpretation of the usage. The key part of PFL is that it makes clear that the person an condition are different; so Person WITH Autism. Autistic people don't see being autistic as an accessory, but as an intrinsic part of the self. Being autistic has mediated every moment of their lived experience, because it affects how the world is perceived and engaged with. In that sense person who is autistic is perfectly reasonable, although pretty clumsy wording.
- I can understand the misunderstanding if you're not heavily involved in working to improve quality of life, and opportunity, for autistic people.
- Random Acts of Language (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with your interpretation. We should consider only the preference of autistics, as Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support: Not much to add to the sources and discussion above, working in the autistic community it's a common complaint that professionals and non-autistic people have a preference for Person First Language, while autistic people prefer IFL. Seems reasonable to respect the community preferences.
Discussion
- please wait for this discussion to be over--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- We have charities that use "people with autism" Etc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Autism speaks has been widely condemned by the autistic community, largely because they fail to represent the views of autistics. 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. 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, Misplaced Pages has always let the group decide how to label itself. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- We have charities that use "people with autism" Etc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In all cases that I am aware of, Misplaced Pages lets each group decide by consensus the words used to identify them. Members outside the group don't get an opinion. This study 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here is a link to the full text. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here is a link to the full text. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Perhaps this will help:
- Identity-first language includes "He's an Autistic" 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have posted a notification of this discussion on the talk page of autism spectrum. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have posted a notification of this discussion on the talk page of Asperger syndrome. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Doc James: You argued that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism on the basis that it only states that some autistic people (and only some deaf people, apparently) prefer identity first language. However, in all our discussion, we overlooked one very important fact. WP:MEDMOS itself is using identity first language for autism! There can be no argument that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism when it uses identity first language (and also makes it's preference clear in text). Since it is quite clear now which language guidelines support, I am going to go ahead and make the edit. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- You do not have consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Consensus is not a popular vote. It is determined by guidelines. Are you actually still trying to argue that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language? Because it clearly doesn't. That means the disability style guide, a scientific study, and the medical manual of style all support identity first language. Saying that I "don't have consensus" when all available guidelines fall on my side just because the vote is split fifty-fifty is stonewalling. I won't stand for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Consensus is determined by the admin who closes this RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: The RFC was malformed, which means that this was not an RFC. So consensus is determined in the normal way-- by quality of arguments. Are you still trying to argue that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism when uses identity first language? That would be a bit of a paradox. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your argument is not at all convincing: MEDMOS says some, not most and does not specify what term should be used — you are going way beyond what MEDMOS says to support your POV. Really, the more I think about this whole debate, I think there is no consensus and the best way to resolve the dispute is to use the terms interchangeably, per what the sources say, without trying to force one viewpoint over the other. Even surveys of people with or who have autism present only a narrow preference which is then countered by parents, families and professionals who narrowly favour the opposite. The fact is there can never be consensus so compromise is the only way forward, I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: The RFC was malformed, which means that this was not an RFC. So consensus is determined in the normal way-- by quality of arguments. Are you still trying to argue that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism when uses identity first language? That would be a bit of a paradox. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Consensus is determined by the admin who closes this RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Consensus is not a popular vote. It is determined by guidelines. Are you actually still trying to argue that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language? Because it clearly doesn't. That means the disability style guide, a scientific study, and the medical manual of style all support identity first language. Saying that I "don't have consensus" when all available guidelines fall on my side just because the vote is split fifty-fifty is stonewalling. I won't stand for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- You do not have consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Summary of my position: WP:MEDMOS supports the use of identity first language when is states "Some groups view their condition as part of their identity (for example, some deaf and some autistic people) and reject terminology." If we accepted Doc James' argument, then WP:MEDMOS would also support person first language for deafness, and we would have to start saying "people with deafness", which is just ridiculous. Additionally, WP:MEDMOS uses identity first language by saying "autistic people" rather than "people with autism". If we accept Doc James' argument, WP:MEDMOS fails to adhere to its own guidelines. Furthermore, the disability style guide endorses identity first language, and the only study we have on the issue states: "autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms (e.g. ‘autistic’ or ‘autistic person’)". It is clear that guidelines endorse the use of identity first language. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- MEDMOS does not say any such thing, it does not instruct editors to edit articles in accordance to your POV. You are going way beyond what MEDMOS says. At best MEDMOS is ambiguous on the matter. Deaf people have no or almost no hearing ability but autism is on a spectrum of mild, moderate or severe symptoms so to compare with deafness is silly. The problem is autism is a spectrum, so describing someone with severe autism as ‘an autistic person’ is much less problematic, but what about those with milder to moderate autism? Some, not all, individuals with high functioning or moderate autism spectrum disorders obviously will take the attitude that their form of autism does not completely define them and might, for example, prefer the term a ‘person who has Asperger’s syndrome’ or ‘a person with autism’ etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- The excerpt from MEDMOS was a quote. I apologize, but I probably won't be responding further because I'm trying not to get caught up in debates until get some other things finished. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should just request an impartial editor review this and do a closure. It is only you and I commenting now and if we keep typing then we will just end up repeating ourselves which might cause a reviewer to skim over content or get lost in the detail or over detail. What you think?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I already posted asking for one at the administrator's noticeboard. They should be on their way, but it may take two to three weeks. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should just request an impartial editor review this and do a closure. It is only you and I commenting now and if we keep typing then we will just end up repeating ourselves which might cause a reviewer to skim over content or get lost in the detail or over detail. What you think?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- The excerpt from MEDMOS was a quote. I apologize, but I probably won't be responding further because I'm trying not to get caught up in debates until get some other things finished. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- MEDMOS does not say any such thing, it does not instruct editors to edit articles in accordance to your POV. You are going way beyond what MEDMOS says. At best MEDMOS is ambiguous on the matter. Deaf people have no or almost no hearing ability but autism is on a spectrum of mild, moderate or severe symptoms so to compare with deafness is silly. The problem is autism is a spectrum, so describing someone with severe autism as ‘an autistic person’ is much less problematic, but what about those with milder to moderate autism? Some, not all, individuals with high functioning or moderate autism spectrum disorders obviously will take the attitude that their form of autism does not completely define them and might, for example, prefer the term a ‘person who has Asperger’s syndrome’ or ‘a person with autism’ etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- Network, Autistic Self Advocacy. "Disability Community Condemns Autism Speaks". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
- Network, Autistic Self Advocacy. "Autistic Self Advocacy Network". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
- 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.
- " 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.
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. 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)
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)
Evidence-based support
Lancet Neurol doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30034-X JFW | T@lk 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
refuse to do new things
Hello everyone. I know that some autistic people refuse to do things that they have never done before. Some children refuse to say thank you, even if their mother has already explained to them, when they will become teenager and adult, they will still refuse to say it anyway. "refuse to do new things" is not written in this article. 138.229.19.202 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here is a source that talks about "The extreme distress.. shown by many autistic people in reponse to changes in routine are rarely described in nonautistic individuals"
- And we already comment on it here with "Restricted interests: Interests or fixations that are abnormal in theme or intensity of focus, such as preoccupation with a single television program, toy, or game." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Cause and other changes
The text "Autism is associated with a combination of genetic and environmental factors"
was supported by the reference in question to
The text "Autism is hereditary and previous associations with environmental factors have been disproved or debunked."
Is not supported by the reference in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- This "characterized as a developmental disorder in popular culture" is also incorrect. The DSM5 is not popular culture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Dangibas, as I mentioned on your talk, the proper place for discussing article text is article talk. If you have recent secondary reviews that comply with WP:MEDRS, please include them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dangibas, it is acceptable to remove posts from your own talk page (which is an implicit acknowledgement that you have read the post), but it is not acceptable to remove other people's posts from article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- 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
- Misplaced Pages 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
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press