Talk:Controversies in autism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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. Peer reviewers: Mymurphy2, Eisherfinski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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”  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” 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. 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. 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.

This sounds like entirely USA-centric thinking. In the UK, amongst the general public and amongst Doctors, Aspergers is widely accepted as a sub-type of autism. Sorry, no sources, just a comment. This is a talk page... I'm married to a Doctor, parent of 2 kids with ASD who the Doctors said "previously, we would have said aspergers... But they don't use that now..." source: also talking to dozens of parents of ASD & aspergers kids across the UK 109.155.225.70 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Controversies in autism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014175207/http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF to http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913173824/http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/basics/truths.php to http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/basics/truths.php

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903024137/http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/2632/1/2006175339.pdf to http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/2632/1/2006175339.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615000359/http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk:80/ to http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215181832/http://archive.autistics.org:80/library/dawson.html to http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html

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

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

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)

Sounds like a good idea to me, since debunking faciitated communication was a significant step in the understanding of how autism is perceived in society. What about the exploitative nature of facilitated communication? Sdsures (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, what's particularly contentious about supporting non-speaking autistics and other neuro-divergent people in communication? Is letting people communicate particularly controversial?
 * Random Acts of Language (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130421054344/http://www.taaproject.com/about-us/mission-statement/ to http://www.taaproject.com/about-us/mission-statement/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html

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

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

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)


 * So the above seems to have been overlooked. However, I found an academic source for the two perspectives which referred to them as the "pathology paradigm" and the "neurodiversity paradigm." I think this covers the medical model vs. social model that the Advocacy section was trying to differentiate between. I've removed excessive information about the autism rights movement itself, removed excessive quotations and opinions of specific individuals, and rewritten much of it to concentrate mainly on these two points of view within advocacy efforts. --anomalapropos (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Ylevental -- the source I'm using for pathology paradigm is here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=PV95DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA373. It's not a single POV; it's literally the opposite of what neurodiversity means. Many neurological configurations which are equally valuable versus only one neurological configuration (and all others are unhealthy or incorrect and should therefore be cured, treated, etc.) I don't think the sentence needs to be changed, but feel free to challenge that. (As a note, you should refrain from changing the meaning of sentences without including a source to back it up. The way you had changed it was not supported by the source I had cited for the original sentence.) --anomalapropos (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Anomalapropos It says on p. 372 that they are looking at "the most nuanced account" for this claim and referencing it with "According to Walker". As mentioned in the edit, the phrase "harmful dysfunction" appears on p. 373 and is described as the "general consensus" for psychiatry. Ylevental (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, the two paradigms are, in fact, Nick Walker's theory and are what I was describing. Anyway, I'm not going to be super fussed about it, but the sentence after the one in question doesn't make sense now. --anomalapropos (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (I edited it.) --anomalapropos (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In
Why is this article called "Controversies in autism"? Why not "about"? Is that the right grammar for the word "controversy"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs More Depth/Context
I feel as though there needs to be more meat on certain sections of the article, especially within the summary of the vaccine controversy and discussions on intelligence, as both have been influential to the conversations surrounding autistic individuals. The average reader may not quite understand the very scientific rhetoric–pervasive development disorder and Raven’s Progressive Matrices to name a few–that is defined but leaves little other context. This leaves the article feeling vague and not allowing for a good core understanding of autism controversies. I am also surprised that the article does not contain any subject matter on psychological theories such as that of the refrigerator mother. While the theory has been widely denounced, it adds a great deal to the history of autism controversies. I highly doubt that the neutrality of the article would be compromised if this additional material were incorporated and worded correctly. Fishfarmer3 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Find good sources and give it a try. Then don't get upset if other editors delete or change it. Follow WP:BRD. It's a back-and-forth process. Discuss on this page if necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am very new to Wikipedia editing-wise, so I appreciate your advice! Fishfarmer3 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as you avoid irritating people, you'll find that we are very helpful here. Feel free to ask questions here or on our talk pages. It's not easy here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
— Assignment last updated by Annamariefdaly (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Messy Wording
I have no clue how to actually edit, but there is a sentence in the "Neurodiversity paradigm" that I had to read several times to finally understand it.

Original: "Neurodiversity advocates are opposed to medical research for a cure, believing that it will lead to eugenics, and instead support research that helps autistic people thrive as they are."

May I propose: "Neurodiversity advocates are opposed to medical research for a cure, believing that it will lead to eugenics. Instead, they support research that helps autistic people thrive as they are."

Two sentences instead of one confusing run-on. RaptorGirl97 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)