Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Featured articleAutism 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
December 17, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

Entire article is hateful and treats autism as a disease

I can't see where to even begin to address this. The language of "disorder," "cure,: "recovery," and so on all assume that our differences imply something wrong with us. Unfortunately, the neutral point of view policy doesn't explicitly address articles which are hateful to the minorities they are supposed to cover, except for articles about religious minorities. But to have an article about autism which only discusses the views of allistic people in the medical community, and doesn't discuss the experiences and views of autistic people about being autistic seems like a violation of the spirit of the policy. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are following sources. There is no hate here, you are reading that into it I think. If you have sources bring them here please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM; please base your proposed revisions on reliable sources. I have shortened your section heading because it runs off the page; I hope you don't mind. It is unsightly to start adding multiple daughter articles to the hatnote, and if we add one, they can go on forever. I made this change;[1] what do others think? It reduces the hatnote to one article, which really is the one summarized here, and puts the other two links inline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are special requirements for sources here. I don't know what they are. I don't have access to the resources I'd need to address this, either. It should be a basic principle that, when we have an article about a group of people, we should try to include material from the perspective of the group. Here we have one that is about us, without us. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is there is not a "Living with Autism" section wto include content about living with autism which would not require secondary medical research. The statement "There is no known cure" appears often which implies that there is no medical solution or treatment that can help those who have autism only phamacuticle knockout products. So if the article does not include a section about how those who have autism cope on a day to day basis, the article can not begin to claim its so called super Wikipedia rating, as it does not fully cover autism but only severs as a medical text book. dolfrog (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think talking about living with a disorder would most certainly require WP:MEDRS sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most children, some children, self-determination

The article says: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future employment opportunities or self-determination[clarification needed].[28]" What does the source say about some children? Some children may lead very normal lives. A bit more clarification about "some children" will improve Autism#Prognosis. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link was dead, so I googled, and found and linked a new one. The paper is long, I don't have time to read it, and that section was most likely written by Eubulides in 2007 or 8. From my preliminary scan of the text, if you want a source that verifies something like "some children may lead very normal lives", you might want to look elsewhere. I have not seen such a source for children with autism, but Dolfrog knows the literature well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current text is about "Most children".[2] I think the paragraph should also say something about "Some children". That was my point. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your point. The source does not discuss "some children" as far as I could tell based on a quick scan, and if you want to include a statement of the nature you describe, you will need to find a source. I don't think that one is it. I only scanned it, but that source seems very focused on QoL measures, with conclusions about those specific measures for "most" children, and nothing else that I saw on quick scan; hence unlikely to be where you might find what you're looking for. You are welcome to find sources that will support whatever you want to add: I don't have time to read that full report, but scanned it to let you know your search might be more fruitful elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy you might like to have a look at this journal special edition Discussion Meeting Issue ‘Autism and talent’ May 2009 and there are more I will have a look around and get back later dolfrog (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time, Dolfrog, and I'm not likely to for a long time. If people (like QuackG) want text added, they need to consult the sources themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the "clarification needed," because I'm not sure what this means about lacking self-determination. Is this supposed to be due to being autistic or is this due to being denied self-determination [being institutionalized, being rendered dependent, etc.] for being autistic? Ananiujitha (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear to me that without the addition qualifiers (of being institutionalized, etc) that it probably means exactly what it says. You are welcome to read the lengthy journal source that is linked that I've already told you I don't have time to read. Most of this text was written by a long-gone editor, so if you have questions about sources, look 'em up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the article, the authors seem to mean that many autistic people are denied opportunities for self-determination. Also, I think exactly what it said was exactly unintelligible. Anyway, thanks. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest a better version?

  • The current text reads: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future employment opportunities or self-determination."
  • My text read: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future opportunities for employment or for self-determination."
  • The citation is from here: http://kingwoodpsychology.com/recent_publications/camh_432.pdf

I find the current text unclear, and bordering on incoherent; it makes it sound like the lack of self-determination is simply part of autism, rather than part of how autistic people are treated by the rest of society; the source is clear that this is about how autistic people are treated. LaserBrain finds my text ungrammatical. I'm not sure of the grammatical differences between our respective branches of English, but we should try to find text which is clear and grammatical for as many readers as possible. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More perspectives on characteristics?

Would it be possible to include more of autistic people's views in the characteristics section? [There is one part citing Temple Grandin] I know there are discussions of common issues and even alternate diagnostic criteria, although most of these discussions are in blogs, not reliable sources. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secretaries here. This is the fourth request in a few hours by you and QuackGuru, whereby you expect someone else to look at sources and do the work. This is a Featured article. It has to conform to WP:WIAFA, that is, it must use high quality sources complaint with WP:MEDRS. We don't source anything just about anywhere to blogs, much less in a featured article. If you want to propose text, find the sources, read them, and propose text based on them. Otherwise, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Unless there is a journal published secondary review of her work, it is unlikely that anything from Temple Grandin will find its way in to this article, but find the source and propose it if you want it considered. The burden is on the person wanting to add text to provide the source, and all of our time will be much better spent here if, when you propose text, you do that because you have a high quality source that supports the text you want to add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I have very little experience editing medical articles, I don't know where to begin or how to edit the section without disrupting the rest of the section. Of course I'm going to raise the issue on the talk page, and ask for advice, and try to work out what a better approach might be. I am trying to be helpful here! Ananiujitha (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, If you follow the link Autism and talent it will take you to the table of contents of a research journal special edition, which includes an article by Temple Grandin, as well as many other researchers. These articles could provide some reliable sources. dolfrog (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I've felt more than one autism-related article (though not necessarily this one) does not give equal weight to all perspectives for awhile now, though without the time and such to get on getting sources, I can't begin to tackle that sort of problem alone. There are books and such, though I'm not sure how reliable some of them are per Wikipedia's standards, having never gotten the chance to read them. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

I had seen an unclear/incoherent passage in the article, marked it huh, asked about it on the talk page, above, checked the original source, and rewrote it so it would be clear. Laser Brain then reverted my edit, claiming mine was ungrammatical, when it was perfectly grammatical, and claiming mine had the same meaning, when the old text had no clear meaning. I restored my edit, and referred to the talk page. Laser Brain reverted my edit again, claiming that I was edit warring. I don't know exactly how you use that term here, but I think Laser Brain is making a series of bad edits for bad reasons. If anyone finds my edit ungrammatical, seeing as we can have different standards in different branches of the language, I am open to suggestions, but I want it to be clear, and the old version was/is unclear to the point of incoherence. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you're trying to place is: "Most children with autism lack social support, meaningful relationships, future opportunities for employment or for self-determination." If you don't know why this is ungrammatical, you ought not be editing articles at all. I find your attitude unnecessarily antagonistic and your use of hyperbole in edit summaries ("trashed my perfectly good work") quite off-putting. Like I said, stop edit warring; you do not have consensus for these edits. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I find your attitude unnecessarily antagonistic" I think you need to look at your own actions here. "Like I said, stop edit warring; you do not have consensus for these edits." What do you mean by edit warring? You have consistently reverted my good edits, you don't have consensus, and you are ignoring the existing talk page discussion. "If you don't know why this is ungrammatical, you ought not be editing articles at all." This is trolling, it is unnecessarily antagonistic, and it borders on baiting. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So I should just stand by while you introduce grammatical errors into the article? I think not. Additionally, I see that your previous addition of the "huh" tag was reverted, and so you're edit warring on that front as well. Please remove that tag, as there is nothing unclear about that sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My text was grammatical in AmE, I don't know what branch it could possibly be ungrammatical in. Your text is completely incoherent. I thought the huh was deleted by mistake. I didn't realize that was deliberate and don't know the reason. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to replace a simple serial list that had a proper conjunction with a mess that doesn't follow parallel construction and has an extraneous preposition. This isn't really the place for grammar lessons, however. You don't have consensus for your change, and you don't have consensus for that tag. Please remove it. If you reintroduce any other changes to this article after you've already been reverted, I'm going to report you for edit warring. --Laser brain (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the items in the list were like each other, that's why it required clarification! What you want is no more grammatical and a good deal less clear. Without the second "for," how are people supposed to be sure that "self-determination" is in the "opportunities for" part of the list? Ananiujitha (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Offering an uninvolved opinion - I can understand both versions just fine. Ananiujitha, if you believe the original wording was incoherent, I believe this is a problem with your interpretation rather than with the text itself. Laser_brain (and others) - Ananiujitha's edit is also perfectly readable, and though it's wordier is not evidently horribly worse than the original. Getting nasty with him is not appropriate here.
I recommend and request everyone to calm down and talk it out here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two

cite PMID|22786515

cite PMID|22250194

Here are two sources. I do not have any specific proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my browser, there's a whole lot of error markup from the formatting of your post above. It appears that you may be suggesting that the article should be updated to reflect newer reviews of social skills and parent training programs:
  • PMID 22786515 (Cochrane review)
  • PMID 22250194
It's not clear to me that our text is now at odds with these reviews, but yes-- please do update; this article hasn't been updated pretty much since its main author, User:Eubulides, left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropsychology and causes sections

... are both in bad need of an update, to the extent that this article should not be featured. Most of what is there is based on research at least seven or eight years old, and doesn't reflect recent reviews (of which there are scores).

Curiously, for at least seven years, our Neuropsychology section has included text cited to primary research from Simon Baron-Cohen, rebutted by other primary research (in other words, original research. SBC's theories have not been widely accepted, and are given undue weight here.

For context, the following articles should be viewed:

Without free full journal access, I can't update this article, but at minimum, hopefully someone with journal access will reduce/remove the dependence on primary research from Baron-Cohen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism&oldid=589138743

Leave a Reply