Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 8

message: All the relevant beginning points are here - Talk:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism
On this page, there is also the list of 24 commonly found traits amongst the population of those with autism/Asperger.   The list is also waiting to be prepared for insertion of the article page of the above topic.   
Kiwi 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To write subtopic on autism/asperger in females

message: This is, to me, a mystery - mainly since I don't know how to make one of them. Kiwi 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've figured out what you mean - the table of contents? That only appears by default when there are more than three sections on the page. There's more detail at the page I've linked. Graham87 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: again, I wonder why the index/contents box has not appeared

message: My son had autism and attended early intervention and has gotten better from autism when he was 4 1/2 and is currently in 8th grade right now and he is high functioning. I also spoke to numerous P.H,D's about this so I am adding the right information on Autism and I am also upset that the infobox says that autism is a diease because it's not it's not a sickness that you can die from, it's a disorder. You could either have severe autism or autism that you could better from. There was a discover 30-years-ago that people can't get better from autism and most people still think that today. But it's not alway's true as I said earlier - through early interventions could help kid's gain self-care and social skills while other's with severe autism can't get better from it. Autism that is not severe is not named like short-term autism it sometimes is refered to Pervasive Development Disorder - None Others Specified (PDD-NOS). So can someone please add this updated information. Thanks! 
: The only place the infobox says "disease" in the article is in the string "DiseasesDB", which is the name of a particular database about medical conditions and symptoms; it does not mean that autism is considered to be a disease. The Wiki input "Infobox_Disease" does not necessarily mean that the condition is a disease you can die from; it's just a template whose name is irrelevant to what appears on the reader's screen. That same template is used by hundreds of other articles, including Color blindness to Sunburn, which describe conditions that are not diseases; but it's not a problem since what appears on the user's screen doesn't say "disease" (other than perhaps "DiseasesDB"). The information that you requested is already in the article: early intervention, self-care and social skills in Autism #Treatment, people with severe autism unlikely to have independent lives in Autism #Prognosis, and PDD-NOS in Autism #Classification. Eubulides 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of 30-year-old studies saying that people can't get better from autism. If someone can scare up the citations they might be a good thing to add to Autism #History. The mainstream consensus nowadays is that there is no cure but that early intervention can help, which I think is what you're trying to say. This point is made in Autism #Treatment and Autism #Prognosis as well as in the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Eubulides 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I need to talk about the changing on the Autism article

message: It is mentioned several times in the article that early diagnosis and intervention are important and affects outcome. Is there any evidence for these statements? I couldn't find any myself. Early screening might even be harmful because of the high rate of false-positives at early age. --WS 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I add Bryson et al. as a citation for that claim, here. Eubulides 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early diagnosis and intervention

message: Autism #Screening was recently changed, replacing "As delay in evaluation may postpone treatment and affect long-term outcome, any of the following warning signs is reason to have a child evaluated by a specialist immediately:" with "The following signs may be indicative of autism:". I'm afraid this change caused the article to represent its source less accurately. Here is what the original source (Filipek et al. 1999, page 469) says about the signs in question:
The following developmental milestones are nearly universally present by the age indicated. Failure to meet any of these milestones is an absolute indication to proceed with further evaluations. Delay in referral for such testing may delay early diagnosis and treatment and affect the long term outcome
I understand the concern about the use of the word warning so that word should go, but the rest of the original text reflects the source much better than the replacement does.
The trend since 1999 is to be even more alert for early signs of autism, and I expect the next consensus review in this area will reflect this trend; for examples, please see Dover & Le Couteur 2007 , Landa 2007 , Barbaresi et al. 2007 , and Crais et al. 2006 . I agree that questions remain on the important benefits of intervening particularly early (a point also made in Rutter 2006 ) but the "may" in the original text captures some of that doubt, and if there is to be serious coverage of this particular issue it belongs under "Treatment", not "Screening".
I made these changes to implement the above comments. These changes don't revert to the original version, as they try to address some of the concerns that I sense were underneath the recent edit. Eubulides 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up a few articles referenced in the Bryson study, and from that I made up that while early diagnosis (as early as <2 years) is possible, but improvements in longterm outcome have only been proven in studies with 4-7 year old children and older. That would mean that at the time the child should have reached the listed developmental milestones, there is still plenty of time for diagnosis and start of treatment, without affecting outcome. However there might be studies that prove the contrary? --WS 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Bryson et al. study is a 2003 review, and so is a bit dated (I'd prefer a more recent high-quality review on this particular topic but don't know of one). The recent trend has definitely been toward earlier diagnosis and intervention. For example, Howard et al. 2005 (, cited in Autism) reported improvement in outcomes, with average age at treatment program intake of about 31 months (s.d. about 5 months). In the U.S. the average delay between first evaluation by a qualified professional and formal ASD diagnosis is 13 months; see Wiggins et al. 2006 (, also cited in Autism). If you do the math, you'll see why it's not recommended to wait until after age 24 months to take your possibly-autistic child to the doctor. Eubulides 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study by Howard et shows that treatment is effective even at young age, but it doesn't say anything about long term outcome and neither does it show a benefit of starting treatment early compared to starting at e.g. 4 years. --WS 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct on both points. However, the Howard et al. study does demonstrate benefits of early intervention, and these benefits are among the most firmly established in the literature. Given the time constraints mentioned above, a parent who wants an autistic child to use the approach demonstrated by Howard et al. will need to take the child to the doctor well before the child's 2nd birthday. Filipek et al. were quite conservative, as they had to be to achieve their paper's unusually wide consensus; I don't see why Autism should be even more conservative than they were. Let's put it this way: does any reliable source contradict Filipek et al., and say that early diagnosis is unimportant? Eubulides 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you agree that it has not been proven that intervention at the ages mentioned in the screening paragraph affects longterm outcome, and this should be removed? --WS 11:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it has not been proven that intervention at ages 12–24 months affects long-term outcome. But the article does not make this unproven claim, so I don't see any text that needs removing. There is a long temporal gap, for both technical and administrative reasons, between the parents first taking their child to the specialist (the point of the "Screening" section), and the child receiving treatment (the point of the "Treatment" section). This long gap is clearly mentioned in the intervening "Diagnosis" section. I don't think the gap needs to be restated in the "Screening" section; that would just confuse the chronology. For clarity, it's better to keep the sections of the Autism in the same chronological order that parents and children typically go through. Eubulides 15:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  It says: As postponing treatment may affect long-term outcome, any of the following signs is reason to have a child evaluated by a specialist without delay:' followed by signs at ages 12-24 months, so at least it suggests that. Btw. the first half of the screening section is not about screening and belongs to the symptoms or diagnosis section. --WS 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the suggestion in that wording, but if you see it can you propose a  wording that better represents the cited source? I removed the wording that was unnecessarily duplicative of the symptoms ("Characteristics") section. I don't agree that the remaining wording belongs in "Diagnosis": it's part of a recommendation to parents as to whether more-formal screening should be done, and "Screening" is a better location for it. The "Screening", "Diagnosis", "Treatment", and "Prognosis" sections are ordered temporally, and the initial parent concern comes first temporally. Eubulides 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screening change strayed from source 

message: Congratulations, Eubulides, for restoring a wreck; you can add the star to the article now.  If GimmeBot isn't through here to update the talk page and articlehistory tonight, I'll do it manually.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: This topic has strong view points on both sides of the fence.  Some from a lack of understanding, some from fear and some from frustration because of the complexity of the disorder.  Yet it is a disorder of the brain.  The most important organ and most misunderstod organ in the human body.  This is one reason for the puzzle pieces being a part of almost every logo for Autism.  What Autism Is This link has shown in plain simple language what it is and how it affects people.  As it says it this and many other articles, the cause has not been found.  You can only treat the symptoms and retrain the brain.  The earlier you do so the better the chances are.  There are lots of cases that site people have been cured of the symptoms like a stroke patient can regain use of his or her arm.  ( Just in a different manner.)  Some have gone too long to be cured or retrain the brain.  Lots of money has been spent to find out what the cause is and is still on top of the main discussion board and will remain to be so until a cause for ASD is found. Jresner 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause has not been found 

message: many autistics don't want the terms disorder used to descripe this condition. sine the condition has positive effects and some belive to be benificial negitive terms should be removed
the autistic savant Trev_lite  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.219.52 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Autism attempts to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style for medicine-related articles in using careful language to describe medical conditions. The standard medical terminology uses the word "disorder" here; see, for example, the World Health Organization's ICD-10 . The Autism article has to describe the mainstream medical usage, as that is a core goal of the encyclopedia, but the article attempts as best it can to avoid pejorative words under the constraint of sticking to standard medical terminology. If you can suggest specific places where this goal hasn't been met please let us know here. Eubulides 06:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autistic rights movment 

message: These changes altered the article's text so that it disagreed with its cited sources. Doja & Roberts () do not say the epidemiological evidence is "inconclusive"; instead, they write phrases like "overwhelming majority showing no causal association". Sykes & Lamb () do not say that the 90% statistic is "probably" an overestimate; they say it "may be overestimated" as well as things like autism being "one of the most heritable neuropsychiatric syndromes"; they use the notion of "probably" for a different statistic (to quote them: "Previous estimates of the number of genes involved are likely to be underestimates"). Nor do Sykes & Lamb say that the problem is that the 90% estimate "does not address the interplay between genetics and vulnerability to environmental factors"; on the contrary, they list environmental factors as a relatively small part of the overall picture (to quote them: "The recent identification of unanticipated levels of structural genetic variation in individuals with autism suggests that the genetic aetiology of autism is likely to be much more complex than previously supposed, caused by a combination of rare and common variants, and involvement of karyotypic and submicroscopic structural variation, together with interaction of variants with each other and with the environment."). Since this topic is controversial, the article needs to keep close to the reliable sources; let's try to avoid bias in our summaries. Eubulides 06:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics and immunization changes strayed away from sources 

message: I'm tempted to simply delete this phrase: "A June 2007 telephone survey of about 11,817 households suggests that vaccinated kids have a 2.5 times greater chance than completely unvaccinated kids of developing a neurological disorder . [50]", as the study in question has huge statistical flaws (reviewed here: http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2007/06/survey-says-nothing.html ) and the researchers have competing financial interests.
While a bit of criticism could balance the statement, I believe such a discussion belongs on MMR_vaccine_controversy instead. 
Low vaccination coverage associated with the MMR scare has already resulted in several new outbreaks of measles (including deaths) and unbalanced statements based on horribly conducted studies on this issue are grossly irresponsible at best.
Smocking 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already deleted it once.  A telephone survey is about as unreliable and unscientific as it gets; perhaps useful in politics and other propaganda, but has no place in a medical or scientific article, neither here or at the MMR vaccine controversy issue.  It's also redundant, as the topic is already covered.  This "survey" is a clear case of ascertainment bias in a biased sample; those who subscribe to this theory respond positively, while everyone else is likely to hang up.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing it. This has probably been discussed before, but given the pervasiveness of pseudoscience, fear-mongering and quackery, it's no surprise to find it on Wikipedia as well. It's not technically vandalism, since the people who make these edits truly believe them to be true and include sources which look reliable to them at first glance. While a different point of view is refreshing now and then, and mostly deserves a place on Wikipedia, it starts to get a bit hazy if it can kill people. Is there a policy page on this? Smocking 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of policy decisions from ArbCom on pseudoscience, but I'm not sure they specifically apply here.  What is really missing—in fact, it's quite a pet peeve of mine lately—is a policy to somehow elevate medical content to the same sort of status enjoyed by biographies of living persons; that is, when content has the potential to harm real people in real life, that content should be held to the very highest standards of sourcing (as is the case on BLPs).  We have blatantly, horrificly wrong medical content on Wiki, being spewed across other mirror websites and regularly hitting number one on Google, and that is disgusting.  I've been considering launching an initiative in this area for some time, as I am *so* disgusted at the level of medical misinformation on Wikipedia, and the apparent disinterest of the Medicine Projects in doing something about it.  The Medicine Projects are ineffectual and disinterested; I suggest this issue needs to be brought to Jimbo's attention and elevated to the same level of importance given to BLPs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; I posted a query to Jimbo.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given all the trouble we've been having with BLP, I do not want to start another BLP-style shitfest. On the other hand, the arbitration committee has already given you what you seek : Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.. Medicine is an applied science, and clearly medical articles should rely on sources appropriate for a scientific article. A voodoo poll is not that. Raul654 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Raul; that helps, if we can just get better an enforcement (and for that, we need a stronger WP Medicine). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur with Sandy and Raul.  A poll is not a good reliable source for this article. The standards for what is deemed reliable vary depending on the topic at hand.  For scientific and especially medical articles, we have higher standards and expect peer-reviewed scholarly literature to be used.  Also, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  A telephone poll is anything but exceptionally reliable. --Aude (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I share this concern, this is exactly the reason I was so dogged in gaining consensus for the wording of WP:V that states "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." It is critical that Wikipedia does not misinform on medical matters, legal disclaimers do NOT free us of moral responsibility. Tim Vickers 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2007 telephone survey 

message: Just a quick note observing the fact that there are no links to the aspie community on here. So, being the biased individual I am, (ha ha) I thought I would add http://www.aspergianisland.com/ as I passed. But, seeing how that isn't possible, I'm sticking it here for people to rave about as they wish.
Hoping this gets supported,
Damon Haughton, (former frequenter.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.41.130 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link: Regarding Aspergian Island 

message: Modern medicine sees all mental illness deriving only from the brain - primarily from neurotransmitter imbalance and nothing else - the truth is that in many cases there is often an underlining physical cause (eg: infection, celiac disease, etc) and this is often never investigated,  and so its no wonder today we are faced with the current tragedy that the Mentally ill die 25 years earlier, on average. 
Psychiatrist Dr Reading Chris reading knew this and treated hundreds of patients with mental illness including autism and found a common link - infection, celiac disease, auto-immune tendencies and malabsorbtion, after treating patients with dietry modification, antibiotics and nutritional supplementation many patients recovered, yet current day medicine does not accept this.
'Enterocolitis discovered in the majority of children with Autistic spectrum disorders'   
see GUTandmental illness  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.235.237 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear what change you're proposing to the article. The topic you mention is briefly addressed in the section Autism #Causes and more extensively in the subarticle sections Causes of autism #Leaky gut syndrome and Causes of autism #Viral infection. Perhaps you can propose specific changes, if any, after reading those sections. Eubulides 06:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do Doctors still ignore the physcial causes of Autism? 

message: I have a real problem with the choice of words here. I have been diagnosed with PDDNOS, and I fully disagree with using terms such as  "brain development disorder" and such. I would like to note that i'm in a school for people with autism and ASD and that actually, the people always are suprised when I tell a certain person from my class or myself are autistic (I don't know what word I should use). Also I think that autism isn't some kind of illness, disease, disorder or whatever, it's just a difference which all people have, and of course SOME people will have similarities. Another thing is that most people I know with autism have good marks, do high level education. And believe me my whole family has some sort of "disorder" and we don't see what the difference is. --Vincspenc 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of things going on here. First, this article uses autism to talk about the classic autistic disorder, which is a different diagnosis from PDD-NOS. Autism typically has more-severe symptoms than PDD-NOS does, and to some extent this explains the difference in choice of words. Second, the article uses standard medical terminology, which currently uses words like "disorder" to describe autism. Recently there has been some effort to rename autism spectrum disorders (a broader term that includes autism, PDD-NOS, and a few other syndromes) to autism spectrum conditions, which would I think be a better term in your view. However, Google Scholar reports that in sources published in 2006 and so far in 2007, the phrase "autism spectrum condition" has 11 hits, but "autism spectrum disorder" has 1,230 hits; so clearly any change in terminology hasn't happened yet in reliable sources. Wikipedia's job is to summarize what reliable sources say, so to some extent I'm afraid the article is stuck with "disorder" unless reliable sources change their wording. That being said, the article should not emphasize "disorder" over and above what reliable sources say, and if you find some instances of overemphasis please let us know. Eubulides 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of words. 

message: The Daily Sun of Nigeria had an article that plagiarized a considerable amount of text from Autism, without attribution or conformance to the GFDL, in one case even quoting from Autism but crediting the quote to clinical psychologist Okey-Martins Nwokolo, founder and national coordinator of Autism Associates of Nigeria. Is there a Wikipedia category for this sort of thing? Talk:Autism already uses :Template:Onlinesource, which generates text saying "This page has been cited as a source by a media organization." Is there/should there be a template for plagiarism by the media as well?
Are the Wikipedia muckymucks interested in this sort of thing? m:Talk:Communications committee perhaps? Or is it too common to worry about?
Here's the news article that plagiarized from Autism. The article's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs all copy text from the then-current version of Autism:
:I've been through this a ton of times with TS; I have to dig back into my talk page to find the place to report it, but the bottom line is that unless you pursue it yourself, no one else on Wiki will do anything.  I've got about three reports in already on TS, and I stopped reporting.  The most irritating aspect is people come up with these things, and think *we* plagiarized them.  Let me know if you want me to dig up the page for reporting it and the steps you have to go through to try to rectify it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, scroll down to the Disorders section at http://www.k12academics.com/  Their entire page is plagiarized from Wiki, I reported them eons ago, and unless I lead the charge, nothing will happen.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what you need to get started is at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The sincerest form of flattery. Tim Vickers 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Heck, I wrote this page, and they're peddling it for a fee, when I'm just a layperson!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media plagiarism of Wikipedia articles 

message: This bot-supplied change had a few good ideas, but most of the changes were unnecessary and make the article harder to edit.  Problems fell into the following categories:
* Many of the changes (for example, replacing "autism spectrum disorders" with "autism spectrum disorders") replace a wikilink to a redirect with a wikilink to the target of the redirect. But that's not what is wanted here. Currently, Wikipedia does not have a separate page for Autism spectrum disorders, which redirects to Autistic spectrum. But in the future, there may well be a separate page for Autism spectrum disorders; if that occurs, we will want the disorder page, not the spectrum page.  There are similar problems with replacing "DSM-IV-TR" with "DSM-IV-TR", "diesel exhaust" with "diesel exhaust", "illicit drugs" with "illicit drugs", etc.
* Some of the changes (for example, replacing "pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)" with "pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)") introduced bizarre capitalization like "pDD". This doesn't affect the appearance of the page, but it makes things harder on editors.
* Some of the changes (for example, replacing "IQ" with "IQ") introduce long names where the short names are unlikely to change in meaning. This unnecessarily makes the article longer, which makes the editors' job a bit harder.
I don't know what bot was used to generate these changes, but in the future I urge that its results be applied more carefully, as most of the above-mentioned changes unfortunately made the article text a bit worse. I fixed the problem by applying this change. The combination of the bot's change and my change can be found here, which shows that the bot can help improve articles even if most of its suggestions should not be followed. Eubulides 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page Wikipedia:Redirect #Do not change links to redirects that are not broken discourages changing of valid redirects for most of the reasons mentioned above. There was a craze of redirect-bypassing bots about a year ago - there are fewer of them now that the above-linked advice is at Wikipedia:Redirect. Graham87 04:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing-redirects bot went too far 

message: Hi I'm a sixth grader at Kennett middle school and I'm reaserching Autism for a report and I'm very interested in it and I want to know a lot more. Is there any information you can give me? 
visit our school website at www.kcsd.org  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.230.104 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at Autism#References and Autism#External links. Not all of the references are accessible on the web, but many of them are, and there is a lot of information there. Warning: some of it is heavy going. Eubulides 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TELL ME!!! 

message: This change inserted text about heavy metal toxicity that is not supported by reliable sources. The revised text incorrectly claims that MMR vaccine contains thimerosal; but that vaccine doesn't contain thimerosal, and never has. The revised text also contains a theory that mercury "sinks to the bottom of the vaccine bottle" if the bottle is not shaken well before each usage; I have found this theory on random discussion sites on the Internet but the theory needs to be verified by reliable sources before it can be put into Wikipedia, and even then it belongs in Thimerosal controversy, not here.
The edit summary for the change said "Article needs to show both sides". Autism already discusses both sides of the issue: it mentions both the MMR vaccine controversy and the thiomersal controversy, states parental concern as the source of the controversies, and gives a summary of the scientific evidence. In contrast the revised text badly misstates the scientific consensus by falsely claiming that there are "overwhelming" scientific reports of success stories due to heavy metal detoxification. This is simply not the case: single success stories are not "overwhelming". It's true that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support biomedical intervention; many parents who try one or more therapies report some progress, and there are a few well-publicized reports of children who are able to return to mainstream education after treatment, with dramatic improvements in health and well-being. However, this evidence may be confounded by improvements seen in autistic children who grow up without treatment, by the difficulty of verifying reports of improvements, and by the lack of reporting of treatments' negative outcomes. (See pages 9–12 of: ) For the evidence to be "overwhelming" you'd need randomized controlled trials that are replicated by different groups; only a very few biological interventions are well supported at this level, and chelation therapy is not one of them. (See "Other controversial approaches to treatment" in: )
In controversial areas, the Wikipedia policy is to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", and to "present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" (see WP:NPOV). In Autism, all controversial facts can and should be backed by a reliable source. The change in question is not only wrong, it is not backed by a reliable source. I've therefore reverted it.
If you feel that the current text does not follow the Wikipedia policy, please discuss the problem in detail on the talk page, as is suggested by the "This is a controversial topic" block at the top of the talk page. It's certainly true that the article can be improved and improvements are welcome. Changes needs to be backed by reliable sources, however. Eubulides 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thimerosal has a molecular weight of 404 atomic mass units. However long you leave a solution of this molecule you will not generate a concentration gradient due to gravity. This is simply impossible due to brownian motion. To separate out uranium, an extremely heavy element, you have to spin uranium gas at 1,500 revolutions per second, generating a G-force over 6,000 times that of normal gravity. This just won't happen by itself. Tim Vickers 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked with my Chemistry professor and you are incorrect. Brownian motion is only the fact that molecules which comprise a fluid at it's constant temperature are constantly moving. It only counteracts the gravity of molecules which are similar in weight to the fluid in question, or lessens sepparation due to extreme heat forces. If you pour liquid mercury into a beaker of water, the liquid mercury molecules are neutral atoms which are consistantly moving, but they are moving much slower than the water molecules and will still collect at the bottom. Another possibility that I'm not sure of is the idea that the thimerosol is an ion, in which case it may resist collectively sinking to the bottom based on the electrical gradient of the solution. But here's the thing, the vaccine is basically a cocktail of molecules. If the thimerosal molecule is  a positive ion, then if there are other positive ions floating in the solution as spectators, such as the sodium ion, sodium ions will be more collectively at the top of the solution, counteracting the negative electrical gradient of that area while the thimerosal ions still gather at the bottom. If thimerosol is a negative ion, then the same effect will occur with a commonly soliable negative ion in the solution, such as the chlorine ion. Which by the way is known to be insoliable when combined with one particular ion of mercury. Both sodium and chlorine ions are very common in biological systems, including the human body. They form what we know as table salt. In this cocktail and in the human body are multiple points where the thimerosal molecule can become neutralized and sink, sink of its own accord, or allow it's mercury ion component to be attached to another ion and become solidified to likely sink to the bottom. I suggest you consult your local college chemistry professor to confirm or refute this point. The reason Uranium might have difficulty sepparating due to brownian motion is likely because it is radioactive and/or hot. What you are sepparating it out of could have some effect of its own too.Youngidealist 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to argue with you about this, but thank you for injecting a little humor into my day. As a note to the other editors here the post above contains no less than 12 basic errors and should not be taken in the least seriously. Tim Vickers 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I enjoyed that, too :-)  Tim, please "consult your local college chemistry professor to confirm or refute this point" :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, laughing's fun... But I am being serious here and if you're up for it I'd like to see those 12 errors you're talking aboutYoungidealist 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Show it to your "professor", they'll point them out for you. Tim Vickers 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Will do, but it should be clear that I'm going one more step further than you were willing to go to make a point by doing so. You really sound more like you are evading the issue.Youngidealist 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are engaging in original research here. Wikipedia is not for original research; see WP:OR. To put this theory in the article we would need at the very least a reliable published source. Eubulides 08:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not origional research. It's facts regarding brownian motion and the references as to what brownian motion is need only be mentioned on the page about brownian motion. Why exactly do you call this statement origional research and not Tim's? He didn't have a source mentioned. The claim only needs to be logically possible and something that people are claiming for it to be mentioned. The fact that people are claiming this and that it is possible based on what wikipedia can and does provide regarding chemistry, is grounds for it to be posted as a claim and then allow it to be refuted or confirmed by sources as needed.68.231.200.13 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not an article about what is "logically possible". It is an article about what is reliably known about autism. There are many, many theories about autism causes that are logically possible (for example, autism is caused by watching TV), but Autism does not have room to cover them all and should not give the unsupported theories undue weight (see WP:UNDUE). Controversies in autism is a better article to talk about controversial theories propounded by unreliable sources. 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and it is reliably known about autism that this claim is logically possible. Mercury toxicity has far more validity than watching TV. For one, mercury toxicity causes neurodevelopmental disorders while autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder. Electromagnetic waves, whatever their wavelength/frequency does not have a history of showing neurodevelopmental disorder at all. What's more, it deserves mentioning because PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT. You are not being open minded about the issue. It's a controvercy because people are being convinced. If few were ever convinced, then it might not be mentioned in wikipedia because it's appearantly not enough for the points on here to be true. On another note, there's plenty of room on wikipedia for any and all truth despite your bellyaching. People want information, they go to wikipedia. There's no honest excuse for people to not be able to be directed to the information that they want to hear about except for potential server overload. Creating neutrality on this article is not going to cause that to happen.Youngidealist 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need reliable sources for claims about autism. "PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT" is not a reliable source. We can use evidence of that talk as a reliable source for the fact that there is controversy about autism, but that is a different subject: Controversies in autism is the article for that subject. As for your scientific points: let's see some reliable sources, please. (A source for the TV-watching theory can be found in Causes of autism #Television watching.) Eubulides 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You are making a big deal from one point of view and denying the reality of what is being talked about. By all means, put all of these points on the article, but do not simply remove all opposing view points. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy for you to determine or assume what is reliable. You simply need sources or to put (citation needed. You don't even seem to care about the inaccuracy of the article before my change was made. I'll look into more detail about both sides, but you need to put the information that is suggested from both sides. Just claiming a few sources to be "reliable" which only make claims, not detailed reports, is not an honest claim to reliability. The topic is very polarized, but wikipedia should not be. Point out the flaws of these claims on the article, but don't pretend that they are completely unsourced or unfounded.Youngidealist 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for looking into more detail about both sides. While you're looking, and thinking about a proposed change, please bear in mind that it does not suffice to merely have sources. Wikipedia policy is to have reliable sources; see WP:V for the policy. For medical articles such as this one, reliable sources include peer-reviewed scientific publications, preferably high-quality secondary sources such as a review article or specialist textbook from a reputable publisher that is written by an expert in the field and is reviewed by peers or editors. The general idea is that articles on medical topics should reflect the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, and that significant-minority views should be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. For details please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources. The above discussion covers several important technical flaws in the proposed change. Eubulides 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will find peer reviewd sources for medical claims, but right now I only want it to be stated that such sources say 'this' and such sources say 'that' the neutrality of what I want to place is that some sources say one thing while others say differently, and I don't like that the article is attempting to govern what sources are reliable or in majority of the medical opinion. You cannot gage medical opinion, especially not by only claiming that the medical opinion of one view is "reliable". The article needs to be revised for neutrality of the subject.Youngidealist 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Look right here Eubulides, you say "It's true that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support biomedical intervention; many parents who try one or more therapies report some progress, and there are a few well-publicized reports of children who are able to return to mainstream education after treatment, with dramatic improvements in health and well-being. However, this evidence may be confounded by improvements seen in autistic children who grow up without treatment, by the difficulty of verifying reports of improvements, and by the lack of reporting of treatments' negative outcomes." How does that make the change completely false or worth removing? You disagree with there being "overwhelming" numbers. Ok, I don't like the word "overwhelming" as it stands now either. It should be stated who's making the claim so that people can decide independently if it's a reliable source. Hell, I'll even use your words exactly and see what you think.Youngidealist 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding unsourced material to this article. Inserting talk-page-discussion-text into the article is also inappropriate. Discuss the changes here, and find some sources to back up the claims. Colin°Talk 08:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that "inappropriate"? The current text is already insinuating the claimed cause and Eubuledes is refusing to allow it to be changed, even when it's his own words being used. The current text does not have or need any more of a source to insinuate the claimed cause of metal toxicity, other than the wikipedia itself in the related articles, so why does the change that more clearly states what the claimed cause is need to be sourced further?68.231.200.13 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The quoted text is reasonable for Autism therapies#Biomedical interventions, which is a specialized article devoted to the topic of autism treatment. It is not reasonable for Autism#Causes, which is a general article about all issues related to autism, and is also a section that talks about causes, not therapies. There simply isn't enough space in Autism#Causes to talk about all the theories of causation for autism; that section is already too long. Even the specialized subarticle Causes of autism doesn't have enough room for all the theories; it defers most of the heavy lifting to a sub-subarticle Heritability of autism, and it defers the controversial topics to MMR vaccine controversy and Thiomersal controversy. The material added in your change has important technical errors, but even if corrected it would be more appropriate for Thiomersal controversy or for Autism therapies, and is out of place here. Eubulides 08:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eubulides, the quoted text is stating a point about the validity of the possible cause not about therapies. I also didn't extend the section, if anything it's about the same size as it was before. You are defending biased laguage in this article regarding a controvercy. If you were acting honestly, you'd see that it is biased and change the language appropriately in a fashion that doesn't have so many "technical errors" in your opinion, rather than simply revert anything that is done to remove the bias. BTW, why exactly do you hord over so much control of these subjects regarding autism anyway?68.231.200.13 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted text that I was talking about is the quote that begins "It's true that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support biomedical intervention…".  This is a quote about interventions, not about causes. If the article's language is biased, please explain the bias here and propose a changed version here, a changed version that is supported by reliable sources. That is what talk pages are for. The "Causes" section is already too long; growing it (which is what your change did) is an option I'd rather avoid. Of course it is more important to be unbiased and correct than to be short, so if extra words are necessary here then we should add them. But the need for the change needs to be explained. Eubulides 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not inserting speculation or origional research. I'm inserting the point that there is speculation and grounds for speculation despite "reliable" research. I've noticed many points here about my ststements being unsourced, yet the controvercy page on thiomerosol has every single quote unsourced! If you have a means of directly refuting without needing to rely on sources, then it should be stated. We know that mercury in thiomerosol is biologically hazardous even according to the "reliable" sources. And while it is openly stated that the opposing view is riddled with a lack of revealing details, I have yet to see anything less from the assumed "reliable" and "convincing" sourcesYoungidealist 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that "there is speculation" is already in the article, which states "parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and parental concern has led to a decreasing uptake of childhood immunizations". Perhaps this text could be worded better (suggestions are welcome), but the point is there now. Autism is a featured article and has much higher editorial standards than Thiomersal controversy; we should not let the low standards of the latter cause use to lower the standards of the former. The claim that there is no convincing evidence that thiomersal helps cause autism is backed by a reliable source in the text right now, namely Doja & Roberts 2006. Eubulides 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material about metal toxicity 

message: Just a propisition here. I have looked through the previous edits for Autism, and I have found no vandelism from registered users. I am asking for a statement, who thinks its time to let go of the semi protect to see what happens? Javascap 20:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean registered users? The semi-protection blocks unregistered users. Is that a typo or have I just missed your meaning? Tim Vickers 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have missed my meaning. There is no vandelism from users who are registered, so I dont see why the block still stands. In case you are wondering, I am able to edit it, I am just proposing that due to the lack of vandelism, it should revert to anyone being able to edit it. Javascap 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see, but the vandalism was from unregistered users, this was why semi-protection was chosen, have you taken a look at the situation before protection was applied on the 22nd September? Tim Vickers 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will dot. 22nd of september. Javascap 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to remove the semi protect? 

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Diseases/disorders/syndromes says that the "Treatment" section could be called "Management" instead. Perhaps it should be given that name? I'm saying this because there's a new high-quality review of autism treatment a.k.a. management out, and its title says "management" rather than "treatment". "Treatment" connotes a cure, or at least a palliation, whereas "management" connotes a recognition that there is no cure, so the title matters. Here's a citation:  Eubulides 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, did the same in Tourette syndrome a year ago for the same reason.  I argued the same on Asperger syndrome, but I don't recall the outcome there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea, also might be a less upsetting subtitle to those who don't consider autism an illness. Tim Vickers 16:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. I renamed it. Eubulides 07:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename "Treatment" section title to "Management"? 

message: I noticed a few areas where this excellent article could get even better.  The way it expresses numbers is inconsistent.  When I saw two fractions using different styles, one hyphenated and the other unhyphenated within the same sentence, I couldn't leave it alone.  Excuse me if this seems trivial, but wouldn't it read better to have some regular standard for when to express numbers as digits and when to write them out?  I propose that single digit numbers be expressed digitally and double digit or greater be expressed in written form.  Would anyone object to that change? Kroyw 03:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MOSNUM; also, I wasn't able to decipher what you had changed ... edit summaries are helpful :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go look.  All I did was remove a few stray hyphens.  Some people overpunctuate. Kroyw 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, looks like they want us to standardize all fractions.  I went for consistency in the other direction.  Will fix that first.  Thanks for linking. Kroyw 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinstated all of them, because they were all correct per WP:HYPHEN and WP:MOSNUM.  It was really hard to tell what you had changed, since you hadn't provided an edit summary and I couldn't see the small change, but now that I know ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'm relatively new at this.  I suppose it's shyness. Kroyw 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's expected, actually?  Should I summarize every edit everywhere? Kroyw 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's good practice; I'll scare up a link and put it on your talk page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right.  When I gave things a close look it did turn out to mostly comply with that guide.  Just a couple of minor things to update.  Thank you for the guidance. Kroyw 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catches!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting issues 

message: Why is the man who discovered Asperger syndrome portrayed at the autism article?  Unless he discovered both conditions, I don't see the relevance. Kroyw 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We use what images we have, and we don't always have a lot of them that meet the Fair Use and other licensing requirements.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems confusing to include a portrait of a man who discovered a different condition at this article.  I read the caption and the passage three times wondering whether he had discovered autism also. Kroyw 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eubulides will likely give you a more thorough answer tomorrow.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asperger was the first to use the word autism in its modern sense. I changed the caption as follows to try to clarify things a bit. Eubulides 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: I tweaked the lead image a bit more, I didn't overwrite the original so if people prefer that version we can revert the changes. Tim Vickers 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image