Talk:on the spectrum

RFV discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Autistic. I just want to verify this because it doesn't immediately produce lots of Google Books matches, and supposed autistics are well known as an attention-seeking group on the Internet. Might be protologistic. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I say sum of parts, it means on the austism spectrum with the word 'autism' elided. It refers to being on a specific spectrum, Delete IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree if it's always used in the context of autism. If citations show use like "I don't know what to do with my son any more. (He's on the spectrum.)" in a general parenting (not specifically autism) newsgroup, then keep.​—msh210℠ 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand, sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If on the spectrum is used to mean "on the autism spectrum" and the autism spectrum is not identified anywhere as being the spectrum referred to, then it's not SOP.​—msh210℠ 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That said, google groups:"on the spectrum" -autism -autistic gives no relevant hits.​—msh210℠ 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we want to exclude all contexts where autism is mentioned -- it would be rather odd for this term to be used elsewhere -- just contexts where a phrase like "autism spectrum" or "autistic spectrum" is used prior to the first use of "on the spectrum." B.g.c. seems to have disabled their more sophisticated search features, so finding these cites is more of a pain than it should be. -- Visviva 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we don't want to exclude all contexts where autism is mentioned. My original comments (18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) were not properly thought out, and I apologize. My later comments (18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) and 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) are more reasonable, I think: we want to exclude all contexts where the spectrum in question is identified.​—msh210℠ 14:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the cites added: The 2002 Gilpin quote uses "on the autism/Asperger's spectrum" immediately above in the text, so doesn't help. The 2006 grandin quote has the same problem. The 2009 Robison quote, from a blog, of course is no good. The 2009 Koegel quote, though it clearly identifies itself as referring to autism, can probably be considered good, as it is using "on the spectrum" without referring to the autism spectrum anywhere.​—msh210℠ 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few more cites — books that use "on the spectrum" in their titles. I think it's clear that "on the spectrum" is being used as shorthand. —Ruakh_TALK 13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Passed.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)