Jump to content

Talk:Classic autism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Low-Functioning Autism)

Origin and use of the term "classic autism"

[edit]

The article most recently provided this source for the term "classic autism" as well as some other claims regarding use of terminology (see this version), all of which the source does not appear to support. In fact, it does not even contain the term "classic autism".

I have failed to find a source that shows "classic autism" to be a regularly used term. Google Scholar produces just a little more than 4,000 publications that include the term, some of which are likely to refer to non-syndromic autism, which is also sometimes called "classic autism". Compared to the 75,000 publications that mention "autistic disorder" (the name of the diagnosis in the DSM-IV) and the 68,000 publications that mention "childhood autism" (the name of the diagnosis in the ICD-10), that's minimal. The Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders contains no entry for the term (not even the equivalent of a Wikipedia redirect) and just a handful of mentions, two of which are in quotation marks. While in these few cases the term appears to be consistently used to refer to the condition described in the article all mentions are in entries unrelated to the article's main subject.

Hi @Xurizuri, I saw that you performed the split of this article from autism and that you mentioned lengthy and complicated discussions. Can you (or anyone else reading this) point me to the discussion where this title was picked and/or literature that demonstrate that "classic autism" is a widely used term for the condition described in the article?--TempusTacet (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TempusTacet Oh god it's been so long since I looked at this. Honestly, that wasn't really the main thrust of the argument, so from memory it wasn't discussed in any particular detail. The primary conversation was also split between multiple threads in a truly horrifying way, but they seem to all be in Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 3 and Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 4. It also affected and was influenced by conversation on other pages, particularly on the WikiProject (starting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism/Archive 1#Merge request: autism/autism spectrum). Enjoy! If it comes up, my vote is to not use specifically "Kanner autism" because I've never heard that term outside of these articles. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xurizuri, thanks for trying to remember and linking the discussions. I had already tried to Ctrl+F my way through these and wasn't particularly successful. The conclusion I've come to in the meantime is that "classic autism" is a term that has at some point been established in the discussions but is not particularly common outside of Wikipedia. I agree that "Kanner autism" is equally uncommon but it's at least listed as a synonym in the DSM IV.
I'll probably suggest moving the article to "infantile autism", as this is the name Kanner gave it and how it has been known for the longest time. But let's see if others have something to say about terminology.--TempusTacet (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I missed a discussion about this, and the one below has now been closed with no real conclusion.
I'd be opposed to a move to 'infantile' or 'childhood' autism because these were always very misleading names, and in the context of modern usage they just sound like they should simply refer to autism in children, which is not what they mean at all. This category was the successor to what DSM-I and DSM-II called 'childhood schizophrenia', which was even more wrong, but was used from 1952-1980.
It's difficult to know what is the best way of dealing with obsolete and deprecated diagnostic categories; there would be a fairly strong case for removing this page altogether and redirecting to history of autism, honestly. Consumption is a disambiguation page directing people to Tuberculosis; Vapours (mental condition) gets a short, historical entry; Ego-dystonic sexual orientation (not 'ego-dystonic homosexuality') gets a rather longer one, as well as a place in Homosexuality in the DSM.
I think it's important not to use a title which risks confusing modern readers. I don't know what people specifically interested in the obsolete category are most likely to search for, but I think it's unlikely to be 'infantile autism'? 'Classic autism' is not an especially unusual term[1][2][3]. I don't think raw Google Scholar numbers are especially helpful here - a quick search on more recent papers shows that 'infantile autism' is used not just for the historical category, but also to describe autism in children, for example. Oolong (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this discussion after getting confused as to why Autism spectrum isn't just titled Autism. Don't have much more to chime in other than that "classic autism" is an obvious Wikipedia neologism that isn't used (at least not in this sense) in the academic literature. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oolong I agree that "infantile autism" is potentially misleading & that the condition described in the article is increasingly of historical interest only (similar to Asperger's). I think it's worthwhile to cover it in a separate article, as a lot of research on "autism" is concerned with "classic autism" only and not the broader DSM-5/ICD-11 "autism spectrum disorder", making it desirable to present the condition. We also have "profound autism" as a term described in this article, which has a clear lineage back to Kanner's original description.
@F4U Do you think we should start another attempt at moving the article?--TempusTacet (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear where you're thinking of moving it to? Oolong (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion. Based on the discussions so far, "autistic disorder" (as the DSM called it since the DSM-III-R in 1987 I believe) seems to be the most popular alternative.
My main motivation is to get away from "Classic autism", which as I have argued above and below is an ambiguous term and a "Wikipedia neologism" for an outdated but historically relevant understanding of autism. My concern is that this article will come to cover a mixture between Kanner's infantile autism, the DSM's & ICD's main autism category (infantile autism, childhood autism, autistic disorder), "low-functioning autism", and the emerging idea of "profound autism" as a restricted diagnostic/research category, presenting autism in a way that's neither backed by anyone's reality (for lack of a better term), research, nor history. I'd rather have this article cover the arc from Kanner to the removal of the diagnostic category in the DSM-5, leaving the presentation of current knowledge and ongoing evolvement to the main article.--TempusTacet (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Possibly 'autistic disorder' is an improvement, then; as long as it makes clear from the start that it's a historical category, I can't see it causing too much confusion.
'Classic autism' is far from a Wikipedia neologism though! Here's a T&F page about it, for example: https://taylorandfrancis.com/knowledge/Medicine_and_healthcare/Psychiatry/Classic_autism/ Oolong (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representation of Autistic People may be Lacking in this Article

[edit]

Wikipedia isn't awesome, but this section of it can be made better be adding substance from the publications of Autistic Scholars & Social Activists combined. 141.224.33.135 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article can surely use an update and expansion. Since infantile autism is no longer considered a separate diagnosis/condition, it should also be easier to do that. Do you have any specific suggestions on topics and literature that should be covered? I also don't think that the article is protected, so you could just add missing information yourself, which would be most welcome.--TempusTacet (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The titles "infantile autism" and "childhood autism" were both suggested, and while they were both shown to be markedly more common names than the current title, concerns were also raised that the proposed titles might confuse readers. Ultimately, neither opinion seems to have prevailed over the other, leaving a situation where no consensus has formed. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic autism → Infantile autism – The article most recently provided this source for the term "classic autism" as well as some other claims regarding use of terminology (see this version), all of which the source does not appear to support. In fact, it does not even contain the term "classic autism".

I have failed to find a source that shows "classic autism" to be a regularly used term. Google Scholar produces just a little more than 4,000 publications that include the term, some of which are likely to refer to non-syndromic autism, which is also sometimes called "classic autism". Compared to the 75,000 publications that mention "autistic disorder" (the name of the diagnosis in the DSM-IV) and the 68,000 publications that mention "childhood autism" (the name of the diagnosis in the ICD-10), that's minimal. The Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders contains no entry for the term (not even the equivalent of a Wikipedia redirect) and just a handful of mentions, two of which are in quotation marks. While in these few cases the term appears to be consistently used to refer to the condition described in the article all mentions are in entries unrelated to the article's main subject.

Thus, I propose to move the article to Infantile autism, which is the name coined by Leo Kanner that is also listed as a synonym in the ICD-10 as well as the DSM-IV. This is a well-established name that emphasizes the status as a "classic"/"prototypical" variant of the syndrome/diagnosis and does not give preference to either DSM or ICD. TempusTacet (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Frostly (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Schierbecker (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Autism has been notified of this discussion. Frostly (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Childhood autism seems to be a more commonly used term though. Killuminator (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I think "Childhood autism" sounds more clear, but honestly, I don't think infantile is an informative name and will likely serve to be more confusing to folks. Mason (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support childhood autism as an alternative move? Killuminator (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? I don't have strong opinions about it, but I worry that childhood autism page name would also suggest that the page covered autism during childhood, as opposed to a specific diagnosis. I had similar concerns with infantile, as I would expect that such a page would cover autism during infancy. I'd be more supportive if the name were "Childhood autism (diagnosis)" or something to that effect. Mason (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
[edit]

"non-syndromic autism" in the "not to be confused with" section links to the syndromic autism page, I'm new to editing but is there not a non-syndromic autism page, or the ability to link specifically to where non-syndromic autism is mentioned within the syndromic page? Amber12177 (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amber12177 There is no separate page on "non-syndromic autism" ("classic autism") because this category encompasses all cases of autism that are not (currently) identified as "syndromic", i.e., associated with a broader syndrome that usually has clearly identified genetic cause. This terminology is defined in the lede of Syndromic autism.
I understand that this is confusing but unfortunately terms can have multiple meanings. (It's even worse for "autism spectrum disorder(s)" in my opinion.)--TempusTacet (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Classic_autism&oldid=1258417394"