Talk:Autism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Neurodiversity is a more inclusive and scientifically accurate way of viewing autism.

The word "disorder" is stigmatizing and dehumanizing. It implies that people with autism are broken and need to be fixed. This is not the case. People with autism are simply different.

I believe that the word "disorder" should be removed from the Wikipedia article on autism. This would be a more inclusive and respectful way to describe this condition. GreenWolverine (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

DSM defines it as "autism spectrum disorder", thus the lead says it as such. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must follow the relevant scholarship, they cannot, cannot lead. If medical orthodoxy calls something a disorder this has to be reflected in Wikipedia articles. There is no useful discussion to be had about this, it is just a fact. BTW I am a diagnosed autistic and I am way, way more 'ordered' than most allistics! Urselius (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

❤️ it's a shame it's like that, is there a way to bring it to a vote or make an edit that mentioned that as Neurodiversity in addition? even in the medical community that diagnoses autistics today there is wide recognition of neurodiversity. GreenWolverine (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. Please review the links on your welcome message on your talkpage. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

and maybe update the data & statistics, in the article it says 1 in 100 where the current data(2020) about 1 in 36 children has been identified with autism spectrum condition. GreenWolverine (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That data is all in Epidemiology of autism. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

but why in the article the data have to be incorrect? GreenWolverine (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not all scholarship relevant to autism is medical! We really ought to make sure we are taking on board scholarly insights from sociology, anthropology, and parts of psychology that do not assume medicalisation is the only appropriate lens for this sort of thing. Oolong (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a disorder. It has disordering characteristics that generally cause problems for people who have it. Removing the word disorder is not only inconsistent with the literature and DSM, it's harmful.

Making people feel like they don't have a disorder, that in fact their lives are just as good and easy as others, is not helpful or accurate. Please stop this nonsense. It's not empathetic, it's just pathetic. 103.14.70.178 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m a person and student with autism and I usually try to hide the fact. It makes me very insecure because people start treating me worse, I’m pretty sure it’s a subconscious thing because many of these people think autism turns you into an aggressive, dumb, and annoying monster. I would really like it if the word “disorder” got removed. many people who are more affected by it can live happier lives than us. I’ve hear stories of people who are more affected by it are using computers to communicate instead of speaking and what they write considering how they look on the outside is ridiculous! Please change it. 82.7.61.20 (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"because people start treating me worse" Worse as in ridiculing you or as in physically abusing you? Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

They stop talking to me and some even start ridiculing me like you said, luckily it’s not physical though. 82.7.61.20 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to suggest that there should be a new term specifically for verbally communicative autistic individuals. like Asperger was in the past (a new word maybe because the argue that he was involved with Nazism). The current language often fails to accurately represent the wide spectrum of experiences and abilities within the autistic community. A new term could help in better acknowledging and respecting the unique challenges and strengths of those who are verbally communicative, differentiating their experiences from those who might have different communication needs. This change could contribute significantly to reducing stigma and enhancing understanding, allowing for a more nuanced appreciation of the diversity within the autism spectrum. GreenWolverine (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm autistic and I disagree. First of all, it's literally called "Autism Spectrum Disorder" and as long as that'd the official name, I think it's better if we use it. Secondly, autism can be genuinely disabling-- I know it has been for me-- and it's wrong to hide that. I've struggled a lot because I'm autistic and saying that it's not a disorder is, in its own way, invalidating. Additionally, the reason that Asperger Syndrome was removed from the DSM-V was because they realized that there is no actual difference between those with higher support needs and lower support needs other than how much support they need. Also, it's not up to Wikipedia to propose changes to the language that should be used to describe autistic people; we're here to report facts, not make them. I do, however, think that there needs to be a bit more discussion about different levels of support needs in the article because it is very important to point out that autistic people aren't a monolith and that we all struggle with different things. "Level 1 Autistic" may be the term you're looking for. Queenofconfusion (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Intonation in autism: mmhm, uhm, silent pauses

The following findings could be integrated in the section on communication (from https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/404 Wehrle, Simon. 2023. Conversation and intonation in autism: A multi-dimensional analysis. (Studies in Laboratory Phonology 14). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10069004)

In particular, length of turns and filled pauses (uh, uhm) are not different between ASD and non-ASD, but backchannels such as "okay" and "mmhm" show differences. The duration of silent pauses is different as well.

I will not edit the page myself as it is already quite long and complex. The relevant summaries of the findings are given below in case other users are interested. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Research on turn-taking (the organisation of who speaks when in conversation) in ASD is limited, with most studies claiming a tendency for longer silent gaps in ASD. No clear overall difference in turn-timing between the ASD and the control group was found in the data under study. There was, however, a clear difference between groups specifically in the earliest stages of dialogue, where ASD dyads produced considerably longer silent gaps than controls.

Backchannels (listener signals such as mmhm or okay) have barely been investigated in ASD to date. The current analysis shows that autistic speakers produced fewer backchannels per minute (particularly in the early stages of dialogue), and that backchannels were less diverse prosodically and lexically. Filled pauses (hesitation signals such as uhm and uh) in ASD have been the subject of a handful of previous studies, most of which claim that autistic speakers produced fewer uhm tokens (specifically). It is shown that filled pauses were produced at an identical rate in both groups and that there was an equivalent preference of uhm over uh. ASD speakers differed only in the prosodic realisation of filled pauses. It is further shown that autistic speakers produced more long silent (within-speaker) pauses than controls.

Suggestions from Gizempsy

Hi, Im student from Uskudar University. I edit this article Autism spectrumas an assignment for my course Biotechnology in Neurosciences. I already completed Wikipedia training modules to be proficient in Wikipedia editing. I would appreciate any support. Best wishes, Gizempsy Gizempsy (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC). ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that emerges in early childhood and is characterized by indicators such as communication problems, repetitive behaviors, and limited areas of interest. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) encompasses a complex spectrum of disorders that is linked not only to genetic but also to epigenetic factors. Essentially, it is a developmental disorder that affects the individual's neurological system. I am in favor of adding the title "Cell Therapies" to the ‘’Management’’ section of the Autism Spectrum article. It is observed that cell therapy is widely used in many neurological disorders today. Hematopoietic stem cell therapy has been indicated to extend the lifespan of children with ASD by preventing neurodegeneration. According to a study mentioned in this article, significant changes in EEG spectra were reported two months after a single intravenous autologous umbilical cord blood infusion was administered to each of the 25 children. Fetal stem cell transplantation via intravenous and subcutaneous injections in autistic patients aged 3-15 has been noted to enhance social skills in the treatment group without any adverse effects. In a group of 37 children with ASD, the transplant group showed a reduction in stereotypical and agitated behaviors and higher scores on the autism rating scale. It is stated that research is ongoing to investigate the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and their by-products, derived from adipose tissues and umbilical cord tissues, in the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and neurodevelopmental disorders like Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Stem cells with regenerative capabilities have shown positive outcome criteria in the treatment of ASD In the conducted study, it is indicated that nine out of ten clinical trials on cell therapies for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) yielded positive results without significant side effects. The importance of the gap junction-mediated cell-cell interactions between cerebral endothelium and transplanted cells was observed in both BM-MNCs (bone marrow mononuclear cells) and MSC (mesenchymal stem cell) transplantation. These novel findings are stated to provide a new paradigm for cell therapy in ASD. In recent years, both preclinical and clinical evidence has been found indicating that stem cell therapy is not only safe but also improves the behaviors of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Therefore, stem cell therapy has gained increasing support as a potential treatment option for individuals with ASD. Considering the limitations and promising sedative effects of cellular therapies in ASD treatment, it has been explained that more comprehensive research and large-scale studies will be needed to obtain conclusive results. The analysis of factors influencing the therapeutic functions of stem cells, such as stem cell types, administration route and dosage, and activity mechanism, is considered crucial in conducting clinical research.

If autism is 'cured', will that not do away with people like Elon Musk, Anthony Hopkins and Dan Ackroyd? Not to mention the probability that such luminaries as Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Picasso, James Joyce and Mozart were also autistic, and made huge contributions to science, culture and art. Urselius (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

How is this possible?

Autism was first described in 1943, but the original description isn't the same as what autism is today. Sources still state it is the same disorder we just learned more about it, but how is that possible? How can he discover a disorder that actually exist but incorrectly state what it is? What happened to the actual thing he was describing? Does it now have a different name or did it never exist? What are the odds that he came up with the actual name for a disorder but applied it to the wrong thing?

Or if the diagnosis was wrong, why was the term autism reused for a different disorder, but still treated as if it's the same disorder, just with updated findings?

Malaria has been known since ancient times, it was believed to be caused by 'miasmas', 'bad air' originating from marshy areas. In the 1890s it was discovered that malaria was the result of a parasite in the blood and that it was transmitted by the bite of anopheline mosquitoes. The disease was exactly the same through history, but its cause was wrongly attributed for centuries. Medicine changes over time, including psychiatry. This is not surprising, I fail to understand your quandary. Urselius (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your Malaria example isn't remotely the same. In your example malaria was the same illness in both cases the only difference was what caused it. In my case the term autism was applied to symptoms that are not the same symptoms of autism today. In 1943 Autism was the "inward self-absorbed aspects of schizophrenia in adults" The description is totally different. It's not the same thing with a newly discovered origin, nor is it different symptoms of the same cause. Like if in 1943 Autism was defined exactly as it was today but said the cause was believed to be a defect with XYZ and we know now that not to be the case, then there wouldn't be the same problem. Your comparison would be that they called completely different set of symptoms malaria, but modern doctors use the term malaria to mean what it does today, and treat it as the same thing just with a better understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:3C9F:FEC9:31EA:DC52 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You have just said that the definition of the causes of autism in 1943 were misascribed to "inward self-absorbed aspects of schizophrenia in adults". That is an attributed cause, not the symptoms. The symptoms noted in 1943 were largely the same as the symptoms noted in today's diagnostic manuals - difficulties in communication and restricted/repetitive interests. Therefore, the 'disorder' of autism is the same and has remained the same, but the ascribed cause - then schizophrenia, now neurodevelopmental - is different. My malaria paradigm is therefore exactly apposite and cogent. Urselius (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Grandfathered in?

According to an article by Ferris Jabr The new DSM-5 criteria for ASD will make it more difficult for people to be diagnosed with ASD to receive treatment, but people that are already diagnosed will continue to receive treatment. Basically saying that you're grandfathered into a disorder instead of being previously wrongly diagnosed? If DSMs are updated to the most current and accurate knowledge of a disorder, why would people that were previously wrongly diagnosed still receive treatment for something they don't have?

There is no treatment for autism as such. Urselius (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The DSM-5 is not new, it dates to 2013. It did away with Asperger's Syndrome as a formal diagnosis. The DSM-5 has definitely not reversed the increase in the rate of autism diagnosis and there has been no evidence that it has affected the rates of treatment for comorbidities of autism - as I said above, autism itself is untreatable. Urselius (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Prosody

I find the statement in this article "At least half of autistic children have unusual prosody" inaccurate and should either be removed or the source replaced with an accurate one. I reviewed the article sourced in full. It states that while research in this area is promising, there is no clear single indicator of ASD in speech yet. I should mention that my bachelor's is in Linguistics and prosody is one of my areas of particular interest. While I personally believe we will eventually find or may have already found and defined an indicator of ASD in speech, the article being sourced (which is a meta analysis) does not provide sufficient evidence on its own to support this.

Possible suggested edit?

Recent research has investigated a possible link between ASD and non-standard prosody.

I can't think of what I would put after that right now. Maybe something about the state of current research and that it's promising. I'd like to do some more research myself in the interim first.

https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/101709535/046565.full.pdf Alderius (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The source seems to me to support the current wording (emphasis mine):

From its earliest characterizations, ASD has been associated with peculiar tones of voice and disturbances of prosody (Asperger, 1944; Goldfarb, Braunstein, & Lorge, 1956; Kanner, 1943; Pronovost, Wakstein, & Wakstein, 1966; Simmons & Baltaxe, 1975). Although 70-80% of individuals with ASD develop functional spoken language, at least half of the ASD population displays early atypical acoustic patterns (Paul et al., 2005a; Rogers et al., 2006; Shriberg et al., 2001), which persist while other aspects of language improve (Baltaxe & Simmons, 1985; Depape, Chen, Hall, & Trainor, 2012). These atypical acoustic patterns have been qualitatively described as flat, monotonous, variable, sing-songy, pedantic, robot- or machine-like, hollow, stilted or exaggerated and inappropriate (Amorosa, 1992; Baltaxe, 1981; Depape, et al., 2012; Järvinen-Pasley, Peppé, King-Smith, & Heaton, 2008; Lord, Rutter, & Le Couteur, 1994). Such distinctive vocal characteristics are one of the earliest-appearing markers of a possible ASD diagnosis (Oller et al., 2010; Paul, Fuerst, Ramsay, Chawarska, & Klin, 2011; Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, & Oller, 2014).

While the source does state "We could not identify any single feature that could yet serve the role of a marker", that isn't what the text of the article suggests either, no? Tollens (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 11:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Differences vs. Deficits

Recent changes included language to highlight that autistic people show differences in "reciprocal social communication [...,] social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication", though this change was reverted because it was "POV writing". Personally, I would argue that "differences" has a lesser perspective than "deficits", which places a judgment on how people should communicate, indicating that autistic people communicate poorly. Proponents of the neurodiversity paradigm have argued against such deficit language for multiple reasons. On the other hand, nobody is arguing that there are differences in communication styles between autistic and non-autistic people. As such, wouldn't using the word "deficit" instead of "difference" have more POV issues than vice versa? (ping @ATC) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Autism is mainly characterized by difficulties with social interaction (and communication and by restricted or repetitive patterns of thought and behavior). In DSM-5 it is,

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder

To meet diagnostic criteria for ASD according to DSM-5, a child must have persistent deficits in each of three areas of social communication and interaction (see A.1. through A.3. below) plus at least two of four types of restricted, repetitive behaviors (see B.1. through B.4. below).

• Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
  • Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
  • Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
  • Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.

— https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

While I generally sympathize with the proponents of neurodiversity, I think we should adhere to WP:NPOV in Wikipedia and state what the medical literature actually characterizes autism as. Changing definitions for perceived judgment or stigmatization is not a valid reason. --WikiLinuz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiLinuz: The DSM is utilized specifically to identify disorders and medical conditions. If this page were titled "Autism spectrum disorder", then it would be understandable to state, "The DSM utilizes the following criteria to diagnose ASD".

However, this is a general page to describe autism, which many people do not see as a medical diagnosis but rather as a way of being. For instance, one autistic scholar defines autism as "a genetically-based human neurological variant" that is "characterized by particularly high levels of synaptic connectivity and responsiveness", which "tends to make the autistic individual’s subjective experience more intense and chaotic than that of non-autistic individuals". She further states, "Autism is a developmental phenomenon, meaning that it begins in utero and has a pervasive influence on development, on multiple levels, throughout the lifespan. Autism produces distinctive, atypical ways of thinking, moving, interaction, and sensory and cognitive processing" (Walker, 2021, "What is Autism?").

I'm not indicating that the entire page needs to be written from the perspective of the neurodiversity paradigm; that would, after all, be a POV problem. However, the first paragraph is currently written in alignment with pathology paradigms that purely view autism as a medical diagnosis. If we're trying to be neutral, I think it would be beneficial to use a more neutral, less judgmental term when describing what autism is. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Basically, as Walker concludes, "To describe autism as a disorder represents a value judgment rather than a scientific fact." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Difficulties = deficits. The core features (psychological phenotypes) of an individual on the autism spectrum are still social challenges (aka deficits). It's not as if autistic individuals would have no difficulty communicating with other autistic individuals and only have difficulty when communicating with non-autistic individuals (some argue maybe to a lesser extent, but that's not relevant here). [...] view autism as a medical diagnosis - Autism is still a diagnosed condition, meaning only a trained medical professional can "tell" (that is, diagnose) whether a person is autistic or not, which makes it, a medical diagnosis. After the diagnosis, they can view their condition/difficulties/traits as a difference (as in, part of neurodiversity and self-acceptance) or deficit (seek accommodations and therapies (Autism therapies) on areas that affect their functioning) - but that doesn't affect the fact that the condition itself is diagnosed using certain parameters of social deficits (mainly) and other traits. WP:SUBJECT of this article is about a neurodevelopmental disorder. It is recognized as a developmental disability in many countries (such as Canada, United States, UK, etc.). And why exactly should Walker's opinion be given undue weight here? Are you quoting from a peer-reviewed publication? --WikiLinuz (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Walker's definition has been provided as a definition of autism that does not view it through the medical model. This definition has been used in peer-reviewed sources (e.g., [1], [2]). To address some of your points:

1. It's not as if autistic individuals would have no difficulty communicating with other autistic individuals and only have difficulty when communicating with non-autistic individuals. On this Wikipedia page, we have provided evidence that "autistic–autistic interactions are as effective in information transfer as interactions between non-autistics are, and that communication breaks down only between autistics and non-autistics". That is, autistic individuals communicate with other autistic individuals fine. Autistic individuals can also have great conversations with non-autistic people.

2. Only a trained medical professional can "tell" (that is, diagnose) whether a person is autistic or not. Even the American Psychiatric Association recognizes that medical practitioners often fail to diagnose people, particularly women and people of color (see also [3], [4]). They're still autistic regardless of whether a doctor can figure it out. This is of particular issue for individuals who can function in a society and thus, don't display the typical "deficits". It doesn't change how they process sensory inputs. This feels on par with saying someone is "cured" if therapies make it possible for someone to thrive. They're still autistic.

3. Once again, everyone agrees there are differences in communication, etc. Not everyone agrees about the language of deficit. "Difference" can mean deficit; it can also just mean doing things differently. As such, it feels to me like it would be more neutral to use the word "difference" than "deficit". Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Studies (like the one cited) focus specifically on "information transfer", which is a narrow aspect of communication. Autism is characterized by broader social communication deficits that go beyond mere exchanging information. Even if autistic individuals can share information more effectively with each other, they may still have difficulties with other aspects of social interactions, like for example, (1) reading and responding to non-verbal cues, (2) understanding and expressing emotions, (3) reciprocating in back-and-forth conversations, (4) maintaining appropriate eye contact and body language, etc. And autism is also a spectrum disorder, so while some autistic individuals may find communication easier with other autistic individuals, those with more severe social impairments may still struggle significantly, regardless of the communication partner's neurotype.

Again, the subject of the article is about a neurodevelopmental disorder which is clinically defined as deficits (as explained previosuly). Humanities or social sciences sources cannot be used to override medical definitions in these articles, as sources must meet WP:MEDRS (medical claims, that is, diagnostic criteria or presentation of a condition, must be sourced from medical sources). --WikiLinuz (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To further add to this point, most neurodevelopmental and mental disorders, and learning disabilities, could be considered a "difference". For example, ADHD is a deficit in executive function. You could say that it's just differences in executive functioning, but on an objective scale, these impairments go beyond mere differences in executive functioning and represent deficits in abilities that are considered essential for adaptive functioning in the environment/modern society.

This applies to pretty much everything, anxiety disorders (differences in how individuals perceive threat), bipolar disorder (differences in how individuals experience and regulate their moods and energy levels), schizophrenia (differences in how individuals perceive and process reality), OCD (differences in how individuals experience intrusive thoughts and the urges to perform repetitive behaviors), etc.

These are of course differences, but these differences arise from a deficit (maladaptation). Which is why it is more accurate (and in-line with current medical literature) to use the word "deficit" instead of "difference". --WikiLinuz (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Frequency

This is described as "1 in 100 children". Autistic children grow into autistic adults so surely "1 in 100" is more accurate. Polymath uk (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

that could be the case but Wikipedia should not reach any conclusion that isn't explicitly stated by the sources. The source for that statement is this fact statement by the UN: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/autism-spectrum-disorderswhich clearly says "About 1 in 100 children has autism."

You can read more about this policy in WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR Theaxeisaxe (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"About 1 in 100 children has autism." I did not realize that it was relatively rare. Does the source provide any statistical data? Dimadick (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

My brother in Christ, it is in the link that he sent Eldaniay (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Should “neurodevelopmental disorder and disability” be added?

Many sources, including the CDC and the National Autistic Society (UK), state it as such. It is also a disability from a medical and legal standpoint. PicoMath (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Special interest (autism)

It's been started by a new editor. Notifying in case you'd be interested in providing feedback or helping out. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Newsgroups Grouped By 'Autism Centricity'

Proposal: Add a section to "ASD in the media" that shows all historic and defunct organizations that cover autism and the many metrics that they can be 'graded' by.

Why? : Newsgroups that focus on covering ASD (or that spend a fraction of their time, money, and coverage on the topic of ASD) are a part of the media that we consume. Therefore, a page that is focused on "ASD in the media" is obliged to include a list documenting some of these organizations in some level of detail.

Definitions

'Austism Centricity': how focused a news organization is on the topic of ASD (for simplicity's sake, we could just include organizations that claim to focus on ASD or organizations that have a massive amount of content on ASD (comparative to the content they have on other topics) and have (or have had) a name that intentionally references some part of ASD (See spectrumnews.org as an example).

Newsgroup: any group that assumes/claims a role in the distribution of (factual) information (although it might be interesting to include and the amount of attention paid to ASD by satirical news networks)

Other Potential Solutions

- A wikipedia page/list of all groups that claim to 'dispense news', sorted by their primary foci and every other metric that we care to sort by.

- Another page that would categorize newsgroups by their coverage of and focus on ASD.

Thanks for reading this. This is my first time joining a talk channel on Wikipedia besides 2 minor edits I made on two other articles that I wanted to appends reasons for those edits to. I hope that this suggestion is decent and actionable, and that this did not read terribly. My reason for suggesting this was that I found this group called spectrumnews.org and their about page seemed pretty terrible. Naturally, I looked to Wikipedia for answers and was met with nothing but a linkless mention to this group in a disambiguation page for spectrum news.

If anything I wrote here was downright terrible, please feel free to let me know. If this falls into the category of original research, please let me know. Sorry if this was a bad 'idea commit'. In the case that this is a bad 'idea commit', please know that I did not intent for it to be so. Robitium (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I skimmed this a little bit but it seems (great) (wonderful), I would most likely wouldn't add much since there is this already here, as well is this here and some other articles that are similar. So I would add that "main article here" thing. But I'll leave it to more experienced editors than me about this. Tonkarooson (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There has to be greater diversity of gender, ethnicity and age ranges in the pictures

Autism is not a diagnosis explicit to children; children grow up into adults and many children are also unidentified until well into adulthood. All the pictures except one are pictures of young boys below the age of 3 years old; all but one picture is of a white person. Furthermore, none of the pictures show groups of autistics together or provide examples of autism activism in practice. While Temple Grandin is a known public speaker on autism, and it's great that she at least counters the overall image the article implies to be a diagnosis for young white boys, she's also a very stereotypical example that not everyone can or will relate to. There are better examples of famous autistic people than Temple Grandin that also convey the broader range of autism as a spectrum among people.

I would also advocate to change or remove the box of how to identify autism, because it seems to be explicitly written on how to identify it in children i.e. lining up toys, not engaging in pretend play, despite other portions of the article trying to remain age neutral.

Also, this article is too damn long in general and should be broken up or reorganized. Finally, remove the Autism Speaks logotype as an example of an autistic representation logo, since the organization is highly controversial and it's better to dedicate a separate article to explain what they are. Entr0pic08 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 23:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Failed edit

I'm trying to publish an edit but it's not working with an error message saying, "Unable to determine wikitext upload result." What is this and what does it mean? Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 00:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I got the edit but not the reference Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 05:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to change the word "symptoms" to "traits" in infobox

Autism Spectrum Disorder is not a disease or illness and I feel like this should be changed in any way possible. I think adding a new template (if that can happen) named "traits" would be better for medical diagnosis that are similar to Autism. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the word "disorder" from the infobox title, so it matches the article title.

Per the link from the word "Symptoms" in the infobox ({{Infobox medical condition}}), with my emphasis here:

Signs and symptoms are the observed or detectable signs, and experienced symptoms of an illness, injury, or condition.

Symptoms are not limited to disease or illness, so I do not think any change is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I never had a problem with the word "disorder". Autism is also not a disease or illness, and most people with Autism (including me) prefer the word "traits" over "symptoms". It could also give the perspective that Autism is a bad thing.

I'm not trying to make this a big issue, I just wanted to make this article feel more friendly, since this can be a sensitive subject to be discussed, and there's some controversy too. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 02:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change or remove the infobox image

Hi all. This is something I'd normally be bold about, but because there were two previous inconclusive discussions about this (1 and 2) and because I'm not sure what else I'd put, I'm proposing this here, hopefully with a defintive consensus. I feel like the current image is far from representative enough of ASD to be there and this is for multiple reasons. All children like (and are encouraged) to stack things up; a child stacking up objects in what could be a perfectly neurotypical situation is, to me, not the best image to be the most prominent one in the article. This trait feels way too specific in an article that's about a spectrum. Besides, this trait is far from the most significant, prevalent or relevant one for autism. The image could still be used in its context. Just not in the infobox.
There seems to be a consensus that "any image is better than no image", so the problem of what image to put in its place arises. Some of the previous propositions suggested using an image with an identifiable person, apparently violating Commons' rule that "Images must not unfairly (...) demean the subject". I feel like that's reasonable. So that leaves us with more generic images. File:Autistic Mind 2.png has been suggested. Me, I'd adopt the infinity rainbow. I think both are good choices.
I'm glad to head what people have to say about this. Let's try to reach a consensus this time because, to be honest, I feel like the current image is a really inadequate one. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not support the use of File:Autistic Mind 2.png, as it is nothing more than clip art. The infinity rainbow seems like a good choice if you feel we absolutely must have an image. Mind you that in articles, and in infoboxes, images are not mandatory. If there is not a good image, there is no need to have a placeholder or unsatisfactory image. I do agree that the existing image is unsatisfactory, as it is, as you say, not necessarily indicative of a pathology. Kimen8 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The File:Autistic Mind 2.png is not really useful in representing the condition. I agree that current image of a child stacking up stuff is not a good representation of autism (it is also potentially misleading and stereotyping).

It is very hard to find real-life or graphic representation for autism, unlike other conditions like bipolar disorder or anxiety disorder for example. But we could have a graphical representation of autism that lists core deficits seen in autism with varying "intensities" or "shades" (this is why the rainbow is commonly used).

So the idea is this, as per DSM-5, individuals with autism have difficulties in two main domains:

• A: Social communication and interaction difficulties
  • A1: Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity
  • A2: Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction
  • A3: Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships
• B: Restricted, Repetitive Patterns of Behavior, Interests, or Activities
  • B1: Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (example "lining up toys", echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases)
  • B2: Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior
  • B3: Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus
  • B4: Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment

To be diagnosed with ASD, the individual must exhibit both A and B, but they can have varying difficulties in the subset of criteria A1, A2, A3, and B1, B2, B3, B4.

For example, one person with autism may have severe social difficulties (let's say 0.8 on scale of 1 for A1, and 0.5 in A2, but may have 0 in A3) and for B, may have severe repetitive motions (say 0.8 for B1), sameness (0.7 on B2), but may or may not have other two criteria. Regardless, if they anyway meet A and B, it is generally sufficient.

So we can have each color for the two main domains with shades (representing intensities) and each color for the individual criteria within A and B, I think this is probably a better representation autism. A image that comes close to this representation that I could find on the internet are this and this. I'm not good in graphic design so someone else could create something similar and upload to commons. --WikiLinuz (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I really like the second image you suggested, it's way better than the first suggested image. To the user that suggested these images, may I have permission to upload and add the image? Or are you more comfortable uploading it yourself? Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tonkarooson: hi there! Those images aren't free so ideally we wouldn't use them, specifically. @WikiLinuz: suggests that someone familiar with graphic design creates something inspired by them. I'd be happy to but I haven't had the time, lately. I do like the suggestion, though. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, so what kind of picture would be better sourced for Wikipedia? Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

A picture under free license, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license --WikiLinuz (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean no offense but the rainbow infinity symbol has nothing to do with autism. Only the hate group Autism speaks. I am autistic. I’ve never spoken to or met another autistic person who likes that symbol nor do I understand how it remotely relates to a mental disorder 2601:901:8180:5B80:D14E:D324:9DED:59C9 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The group Autism speaks is not associated with the rainbow infinity - perhaps you're thinking of the puzzle piece? Furthermore, making an assertion and backing it up with "I'm autistic" isn't helpful here, as many of the editors involved in this discussion are autistic themselves. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"de-pathologising language"

I have just made a partial reversion of an edit made by @Notcharizard, because of their attempts to "de-pathologise" the article.

This article is relevant to pathology. Autism is a medical condition, and must be discussed as such. I like the inclusion of the Double empathy problem, but I don't think its central enough to the topic to merit a placement in the introduction. Additionally, it does not suggest that autistic people don't have trouble communicating, but rather that they seem to have less trouble, or are less effected by their troubles, when communicating with other autistic people. This way, removing the claim that autistic people have touble communicating is probably not the right direction for the article. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing a partial revert and keeping in the links, instead of just undoing it all, I appreciate that! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting though that autism is generally not considered a "medical condition", it is a developmental disability. It is an important distinction - autism is not something that most modern medical proffesionals would propose trying to "cure". -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree that autism is not to be cured - I believe that real human success would be impossible without it. However, it is certainly linked to pathology, hence terms like "symptom" and "treatment" do fit.

I plan to look over the page for the double empathy page and add a section on it to this one, but it will be time for me to go to bed soon, so that is a matter for tomorrow. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the importance of trying to ensure that everyone is respected, treated with inherent dignity, and empowered to live a fulfilling life, "de-pathologizing" is a bit of a social movement and not necessarily central to defining the subject in an encyclopedic sense. The subject is quite literally defined by the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For an encyclopedia, those kinds of things are our North Star. That doesn't need to be at odds with valuing basic human dignity, but we're not in the business of public advocacy either. GMG^talk 21:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. It may be worthwhile to add a section (or even create an entire article) about the view of high functioning autism as a psychological difference that needn't be considered a disease or disorder - These ideas are becoming very popular and there are certainly enough sources. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  I expect a lot of that falls under something like Neurodiversity. But there is a division to be had there between a diagnosis and a social group for reasons of equity and inclusion. As far as the former, we are still at a base level beholden to people like the American Psychiatric Association. They are kindof by definition the ones who get to decide whether something falls within or outside of the expected range of non-clinical variations. GMG^talk 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Autism" and "Autism spectrum (disorder)" on articles.

Request to merge these articles that have "Autism" and "Autism spectrum (disorder)" as separate articles. It is also a request to make this a team effort, and share this to other Wikipedia articles that still have this I have shown.

So far, I found 6 pages that still have two separate ASD articles.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autisme, and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_du_spectre_de_l%27autisme. I can't say anything about this on French Wikipedia because I can't speak French.

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/자폐, and https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/자폐_스펙트럼. I can't say anything about this on Korean Wikipedia because I can't speak Korean.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/自閉症, and https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/自閉症スペクトラム障害. I can't say anything about this on Japanese Wikipedia because I can't speak Japanese. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 21:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2024

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: moved. Consensus to move; arguments supporting a move are more aligned with policy than arguments against. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Autism spectrum → Autism – This article is about the condition, not really the spectrum. I can't easily find any sources that say "Autism Spectrum" to refer to the condition instead of "Autism" or ASD/ASC. "Autism" also seems to be consistent with WP:PRECISION. A mentally disabled mathematician (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Move. I understand the reasoning for the article name “autism spectrum”, it’s important that people understand it’s a spectrum and such. But that’s discussed in the article, and “autism” is more efficient, fits better with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Having the article named as it is is good enough I would think. Maybe if it were to be renamed, possibly it could be called "Autism Spectrum Disorder"? Since Wikipedia likes things to be professional like. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 11:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Another issue I noticed is that the medical condition infobox was seemingly written as if the header would say ASD, but because the name of the page is "autism spectrum", it says that instead. So I think it will need to be renamed regardless. The synonyms argument includes ASC and autism, not ASD. That would be fixed with a rename to either "Autism" or "Autism spectrum disorder". A mentally disabled mathematician (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

the medical condition infobox was seemingly written as if the header would say ASD — I changed it, in response to #Request to change the word "symptoms" to "traits" in infobox (I acknowledge that the request did not include the word "disorder", but I was treating "disorder" as similar to "disease or illness"), and also {{Infobox medical condition}} says "Name ... should be the same as the title of the article". I have no objection to my edit being reverted. (It might make sense to agree on the article title first, then adjust the infobox if necessary, but we can always change the infobox again later - after agreeing on the article title - if necessary.) Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The condition is called "Autism Spectrum Disorder" per the DSM-5. While moving the page to Autism may make it more concise, it really does not seem necessary. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It could alternatively be renamed to "Autism spectrum disorder," and you make a good point that the article is about a medical condition; in any case, "Autism Spectrum Disorder" and "autism" are both common names for ASD and "autism spectrum" is not. A page called "Autism spectrum" to me implies that it's about people with autism, not the condition itself. A mentally disabled mathematician (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Autism is not a “medical condition”. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but by definition and from what is published in reliable sources it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

See the definition of neurodevelopmental disorders. Also, this was already discussed in the past. --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, not seeing any policy or guideline based reasons in the discussion. Opposition is based on the official name which is an appeal to authority not used by Wikipedia's title guidelines and an opinion on how the 'spectrum' is an important feature (that's what the article body is for, not the title). The guideline to support this move is WP:COMMONNAME which is supported by a simple search of google scholar for 'autism' which shows that the condition is commonly shortened to just 'autism' in the body of most papers. Ngrams, whilst not being perfect does show autism to be about 5 times as common than autism spectrum (which implies that autism is used as a stand alone term far more than it is with the name 'autism spectrum'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I am a firm believer that both logic and what happens in the real world should trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines, whenever they clash. Wikipedia policies are never cogent for all situations. They cannot be as they are often formulated to deal with quite specific problems, then expanded to cover situations where they are either irrelevant or are positively detrimental. Urselius (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem. It's a common name being used instead of the formal name, said common name is still used in hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources. It's not even erroneous unlike other common names either, just simplistic. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I would like to register my dislike of dealing with pointless requests for mergers and changes of article names, please people, preferentially add useful well referenced content rather than investing time and effort into initiating constant chopping and changing! Autism is universally recognised as a 'spectrum condition'; the use of the monolithic term 'autism' would tend to distract from this very important feature. Urselius (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current understanding of autism is that it isn't a single, monolithic disorder but rather a spectrum of conditions with a wide range of symptoms and severity levels. Calling it just "autism" is outdated (though it's popular in informal and historic contexts). Moving it to "Autism" would actually make it inaccurate and less precise. "Autism spectrum" or "Autism spectrum condition" would be more scientifically aligned, and also represents a heterogeneous group of people who share certain core characteristics of the condition but may vary significantly in their specific symptoms and abilities.

--WikiLinuz (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sexuality and intelligence are spectrums too, but that doesn’t need to be mentioned in the article titles. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sexuality and intelligence aren't neurodevelopmental disorders. --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing so far, it seems that even most people who oppose still think that "Autism spectrum disorder" (or "condition") would be a better article title than what we have now. There used to be a separate page for "Autism" but it was merged into this one. But autism, regardless of medical context, definitely still does exist and is highly notable on its own, so something feels off to me about having a formal page title of "Autism spectrum disorder" without simply an "Autism" page. Maybe that's why "Autism spectrum" was chosen, but it has the issues mentioned by others already. A mentally disabled mathematician (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a good point.

Look at the revision history between 2009—June 25, 2022 of Classic autism, at the beginning it shows a created page by an editor with the edit summary saying, "<Created page with Classic autism, is a type of autism, is also referred to as severe autism andKanners Syndrome. The other types of autistic spectrum disorders...". If you type this out on the wayback machine "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_autism?wprov=sfti1" and go to January 26, 2022 time 16:09:56, it's named "Low-functioning autism"! And the "autism" link redirects to "Autism spectrum"! I'm not too sure if this is groundbreaking but I think this was a pretty good quick research. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 04:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that link from low-functioning autism is about the "classic autistic disorder", whatever that means.

The redirect text says, "This article is about the classic autistic disorder. For other conditions sometimes called "autism", see Autism spectrum. For the journal, see Autism (journal)."

What are these articles in present day? Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 05:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support: As per Wikipedia policy of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSICE. 'Autism' is short for [the] Autism spectrum, and the medical term shouldn't be the title. This also reflects the lede sentence, which is "Autism, formally called autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC)". I concur with Traumnovelle and NotCharizard. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support – Per WP:CONCISE. Svartner (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

does not appear to have moved...

@BilledMammal, is the page supposed to have moved by now? I'm not familiar with this process, so I don't really know how long it's meant to take. Signed from the grave (seance me!) 14:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's move protected; I have put in a request at WP:RMTR. BilledMammal (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Article changing from "Autism spectrum" to "Autism"

Well, it's done; it's now called "Autism". I really didn't think this needed to be changed again. It used to be called "Autism", look on the Wayback Machine. I wonder the article being called "Autism" played a role with the controversies? I think this name change was bad and I'm unhappy with it. :( Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the way wikipedia works - I expect that if the article being called "Autism" causes problems, another discussion will be started and it might be moved again. This is kind of an ongoing issue, how we ought to think about and classify autism, so it'd be unreasonable to expect it to be stable. Also, keep in mind that the article does begin with "also called autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC)," so it's unfair, in my opinion, to say that it's that fundamental or influential of a change. Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 14:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg as infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is becoming increasingly off-topic and uncivil.

---

This looks like an encyclopedia dramatica article now with that image in it. Very smart thinking here Wikipedia, it should be removed as it is a dog whistle to certain people. 2605:8D80:404:7FD2:A9CE:2703:788F:85E6 (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg is not a dogwhistle. She is an autistic person, and while she may be controversial in some areas, she is a generally admired as a public figure. There is still disagreement about what the image should be, and I don't expect Greta will be there permanently.

. ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 13:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Urselius: Please see WP:CIVIL and strike this comment. jp×g🗯️ 23:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the refusal to strike those personal attacks on (I think reasonable) request, I applied {{RPA}} here. Ybllaw (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ybllaw:Utterly ridiculous, there was no personal attack whatsoever! I expressed an opinion about a wide group of people characterised by a viewpoint that I find uncongenial, I named no one. How can a 'personal attack' be perpetrated on a group of people, none of whom are named? This is illogical, the result of flawed thinking. This is also a travesty, and everything I find inimical about Wikipedia processes. For a new editor - please see my extensive contributions of quality content, including 39 novel pages two of which are GAs - I find your actions extremely high-handed and without merit. Urselius (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A wide group of people - that almost certainly includes Wikipedia editors. It is like how saying something like 'women are stupid' is a personal attack because there are women who edit Wikipedia and thus I am calling said editors 'stupid'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Why is there a picture of a person with autism at the top of the page at all?

Creating a new topic as this is not specifically about Greta Thunberg, though I do think Greta Thunberg does not meet the criteria of being "representative" as in "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image" from MOS:LEADIMAGE.

There don't seem to be any visible characteristics of autism, unlike for example down syndome where an image is justifiable because it can be recognised by looking at a person.

Why then include an image of a person at all? I don't think this meets MOS:LEADIMAGE, specifically "Lead images [...] should [...] illustrate the topic specifically" and "Lead images are not required". Ybllaw (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to the old image which has been in the page for however long without as many people complaining. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please respect the discussion page and separate the Greta-or-not discussion from the old image. There have been lengthy discussions in here. Don't just come and revert things back after just dropping a one-liner. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

i don't see lengthy discussions? 49.183.1.141 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for the image

Regardless of if the article necessitated a replacement image, I think it is problematic to use this one.

First, I don't see how it is appropriate to simply use an image of an important person diagnosed with the disorder. This is inconsistent with other articles. For example, in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the image showcases a relevant context of ADHD symptoms (academic performance) and is not focused on any individual diagnosis. Second, Greta Thunberg expresses idiosyncratic views of ASD such that it is a "superpower" in her activism as indicated in that article; this surely is not the consensus view of ASD and can serve to mislead readers, especially by referring to this activism in the footnote. This is compounded by the previous point in that the image conveys nothing substantive but a reference to the individual.

It may be prudent to find an alternative image but I certainly feel it's important to reach a consensus on this matter by evaluating all of these factors so as to have a relevant, consistent picture. If one cannot be determined at this time, it may be necessary to exclude a main image altogether as is the case elsewhere (e.g. cognitive disengagement syndrome).

Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Better no image than one that reinforces the widespread and entirely incorrect stereotyping of autism as a purely, or largely, childhood condition. Urselius (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As Urselius stated, I think that no image would be better, if no agreement can be reached. This infobox is already very busy and an image makes it even lengthier. Regarding the picture of Greta, I'm not sure if it contributes much to this article either for the reasons mentioned in the above sections, incluging MOS:LEADIMAGE. Piccco (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This will only really get solved via RfC Traumnovelle (talk) Traumnovelle (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I support "no image". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I support whatever makes the consensus - Talk:Autism#Disagreement on the image. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 22:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Request about changing references talking about/mentioning Autism Speaks

Autism Speaks is a very bad organization, saying or still promoting inaccurate information about Autism Spectrum Disorder. I'm positive that having Autism Speaks as any type of citation(s) is a terrible idea and should be changed.

For more info about this organization, you can watch this YouTube video: "A Closer Look at Autism Speaks" by "foster on the spectrum"

(can't do the link due to a blacklist thing) Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, but please consider citing a peer-reviewed article or endorsements from professional groups indicating as such. These can help establish the removal of content. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is one citation to Autism Speaks and it is in reference to an event/campaign they hosted. The campaign itself is given basically no attention in the article, instead the response to the campaign by someone else is given more attention.

Youtube videos, unless published by a reputable source such as a news agency are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

maybe I need to be more specific with what I'm meaning. References that are from the organization Autism Speaks, a hated organization (mostly by Autistics), shouldn't be used as a source, even if it's considered a reliable source.

I'm also not saying we should use YT as a source, I'm putting the video there for anyone who want to know more about it or doesn't know about it. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 01:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Which reference do you take issue with? I can only identify one reference from the organisation and it is just to show that they held a campaign which is referenced in the text as something that was being responded to by another person. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes [12] and [369] seem to be referring to the organization in some way. I quite sure references from or about Autism Speaks shouldn't be used as citations in any way because the organization is not good in any way.

Maybe I should've described my request better at the start of this. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference 12 appears to be a critique of the organisation, and as I said reference 369 is just to support this sentence: In 2018, Julian Morgan wrote the article "Light It Up Gold", a response to Autism Speaks's "Light It Up Blue" campaign, launched in 2007.

Not a single viewpoint of the organisation is represented which is arguably NPOV against the organisation.

We do not delete references because the organisation behind them is 'not good in any way', so long as they are reliable and have a reputation for factually and accurately reporting things (bias does not mean a source should be deprecated) they can be used on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't really read the two articles I mentioned much even though I clicked on the links tbh.

I see. If there isn't a good reason to change the references, then we don't need to change them. Just please be aware that Autism Speaks isn't a good organization. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 22:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ive heard there kid companey "next for autism" is also bad. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Talk page banners

Not very important, but the talk page banners are a little confusing after the move to Autism. I changed the merge template to account for the history being swapped, but now the banners are inconsistent and look a little weird. Not sure what the best approach is, so I'll leave this comment and leave it up to someone else (if anyone cares). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Asperger syndrome here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per WP:SNOW. Discussion has been open 6 weeks and consensus is near unanimous. No prejudice to other improvements being made to the page. Non Admin Closure Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

---

As Asperger syndrome is a form of ASD ("6A02.0 Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language", ICD-11 for Morality and Morbidity Statistics, 2018-06-18{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)), shouldn't it be here instead of on its own page?
COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is a good point, and some rearrangement would make a lot of sense, but on purely practical grounds, Autism spectrum is over 8,500 words and Asperger syndrome is nearly 6,000. Even allowing for much duplication, the resulting article would just be too big. And who is going to carry out that merge? A better solution would be to treat Asperger syndrome as a spin-out subject, giving it a heading on this page and a link. Then duplication on Asperger's syndrome could be reduced. Causes and such like are already covered here, and could simply be linked from that page to the appropriate section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree with you about both articles being joined together it will only make the article long and duplicate the words , as someone who was diagnosed with aspergers i would find this really frustrating,but that's just me and its not about me but others. Cobyc09 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Having Asperger's be a spin-off is a great idea. Because Asperger's is still called a form of Autism, I might come to the Autism page to learn more about it. Lord knows I was hungry for information, but didn't know where to find it, when my adult stepdaughter, who still lived with us at the time, was first diagnosed. I would expect to at least see a link to more information here, but I think you're right. Added together, it's too much. StarvingForAnswers (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I do not really understand the argument given for merging - Monster is a type of energy drink, and medical libraries are a type of library - that does not mean they should not have their own articles? Am I missing soemthing? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard nobody uses the word aspires anymore its not even a thing its now catagrised under asd, it having its own page will make people think its still used. but at the same time we have Nintendo_Entertainment_System and History_of_the_Nintendo_Entertainment_System should they be merged? Anthony2106 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a diagnosis anymore, but that is stated in the first sentence of the article: "Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's syndrome, formerly described a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized..." Female hysteria is not a diagnosis anymore either, but having an article on it so that people can learn about its history is still useful and important. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 06:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard yeah true Anthony2106 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It is still diagnosed in many countries, though. I was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome two months ago in Germany. Asperger’s isn’t an outdated diagnosis everywhere, the DSM is used for diagnosis in like two countries only, all other countries use the ICD. Add to the fact that the ICD-11 only came out in 2022, and that health systems don’t change to new diagnostic manuals and codes immediately, plus the ICD-11 hasn’t been translated in all countries yet, we need to keep the Asperger’s article. Meaninglesscharacter (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Autism is a diagnosis that is still used, while Asperger is no longer in use. I think that could create some confusion if it were included in the Autism spectrum article, possibly misleading some to believing that Autism is no longer a valid diagnosis, or that Asperger's still is. Additionally, as others have mentioned, the resulting merged article would be far too long and lots of duplicate information would have to be pared down. If you have a draft of a merged article of reasonable length and with acceptably little duplicate information, I might be in favor. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose just because something may not be distinct now doesn't mean it wasn't distinct historically. WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY, furthermore the term is still used with over 15,000 papers since 2020 using the term aspergers and many distinguishing it from autism. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, this merge does sound interesting. in my opinion, I don't think this is that necessary now that Autism is one big thing now.

Before this article merged, "Autism spectrum" is referring a range of neurodevelopmental disorders that includes Autism, this article doesn't have any specific information about the history.

"Autism" is the original diagnosis made by Leo Kanner.

Asperger's syndrome is the diagnosis from Hans Asperger

So this means "Autism" is referring to Leo Kanner's "early infantile autism"

And "Autism spectrum" is the now merged article that refers to Autism as a Whole. Asperger syndrome was not considered to be a part of ASD

Basically my point is that I'd like to keep the history of Asperger's syndrome and History of autism. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

OpposeThe concern is that if you consolidate, the article will be very long and difficult to read. In addition, it cannot be said that Autism and Asperger syndrome are approximately the same. For this reason, we oppose merge. Kansai Railway Mania (talk · contribs) 10:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Asperger's syndrome most definitely is a standalone notable topic, and not quite the same even. The consensus on this seems pretty clear anyway. TheBritinator (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Too much historical psychiatric/organizational inertia behind Asperger's to merge it, leave as is Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - It is a historical diagnosis, it is mentioned already in this article, there is no useful outcome in merging the two articles. Besides, this article is very long as it is, no need to make it even longer for no real gain. Urselius (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Oppose – Some countries (e.g. Germany) are still using ICD-10, since implementing ICD-11 will take another couple of years. Therefore, Asperger’s syndrome as well as Childhood and Atypical autism are all still being diagnosed. Besides, many people with Asperger’s are opposed to being thrown into the same pot with more impairing forms of autism and therefore continue to call themselves Aspies. SapereAudete (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Oppose – I think @Sirfurboy🏄 has the right idea with making Asperger’s a spin-off of the ASD page, especially since the syndrome has gotten so much traction in popular media of the 90s, 2000s and 2010s, and it will still continue to be considered a valid diagnosis, even if all countries on the planet immediately implemented a shift to ICD-11. A layperson should still be able to find it on WP, and learn of its history and that it is no longer considered a proper diagnosis in some parts of the world. –Konanen (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment The Asperger's article is way too big. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree with the consensus here that this will unnecessarily increase the size of the article and Asperger being a type of ASD doesn't automatically justify a merger. Aintabli (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Autism spectrum disorder includes not only Asperger syndrome but also Classic autism, Childhood disintegrative disorder, and Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (all of which were previously categorized under Pervasive developmental disorder). All of them have historical significance, and merging them I don't think would make a lot of sense. Asperger syndrome's article certainly needs to be re-written and updated but that doesn't justify a merge. --Digressivo (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I believe that the article needs to be cleaned of outdated sources and written based on sources that consider Asperger syndrome as a historical concept. There is no need to merge - the article Autism should not be oversized.Reprarina (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment Either merge, or massively rewrite Asperger's to focus on it as a historical diagnosis QoopyQoopy (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's still used a diagnosis in other countries so focusing on it as a historical diagnosis would be inappropriate. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a more than adequate consensus for this proposal to be rejected. Please could an admin wrap this up. Urselius (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – there are enough distinctions and differences in Asperger's from autism that merging these two together would end up in an awfully long article, and it'd become harder for a reader to view the differences. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Autism therapy with traditional games

There are many therapies that can be done for autism. one of them is traditional games that hone motor skills.[5]http://journal.unair.ac.id/filerPDF/JURNAL%20DIKS-HAMIDAH.pdf FIn4nwatin (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Article favors ABA

In the introduction, ABA is stated to be helpful, through contended by the autism rights movement. In Non-pharmacological interventions under Management, ABA is stated to have a strong evidence base.

Both of these claims are contradicted by the Applied behavior analysis article's Use as therapy for autism in whole. Additionally, the ABA article does a much better job of presenting criticism against ABA for autism.

Further, "Many people, including autistic adults, have criticized ABA, calling it unhelpful, unethical, and even abuse." is a false way of talking about the combination of an article that summarizes current research, a meta-analysis debunking an effort to claim that ABA isn't unhelpful, unethical, and abuse, and a small survey of autistic adults that received ABA. (I can't reasonably get my hands on citation 13, and so can't tell anything about it beyond it's a book, and could not investigate citation 277 very far.) Further, only the book and the summary article are cited again at all, and the quote for the summary article is from the abstract, failing to even so much as summarize the whole abstract. Further, by making claims about particular sources rather than about criticism, the article artificially narrows the number of sources that can be attached to any given claim, with all 3 other citations covering the topic cited to the book, and all 3 of the citations I can access support the topic attached to the summary of current research.

Finally, although the papers that it cites would be better to cite, if we're spending this much time on ABA, the meta-analysis is specifically a complete debunk of Gorycki et al. (2020), and amongst the many topics that it covers, improving compliance with the Ethics Code for Behavioral Analysts can't help, because it must be interpreted in regards to the practices of ABA, the fact that they have autistic clients, and the licensing requirements. The reason I bring this topic up is that that's the citation for improving ethical compliance as an alternative to stopping ABA. The debunk is *much* too long to get into on this article, and very viscous, but so long as ABA is the topic, Donovan, M.P. (2020). The Department of Defense Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration Annual Report. Report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives. , found at https://altteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Annual-Report-on-Autism-Care-June-2020.pdf?x78693 and Stewart, J. (2019). The Department of Defense Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration Quarterly Report to Congress. , found at https://www.altteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TRICARE-Autism-Report.pdf?x78693 These research papers were the largest studies done on ABA, and amongst the few that cover both verbal and nonverbal autism. If the ACD has not been cancelled, there should be further, similar studies; I can not find such. 144.6.108.88 (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall Problems of the Article

I would like to present a few of what I perceive as problems with the article. I believe these are up for debate, and as such, it felt more adequate to present these here first, instead of editing it right away.

1. The section on "burnout" features a singular sentence. For such an important symptom of autism, I believe it requires further development, but I lack the competence to do so myself. It is not the only section featuring little explanation, but the one that require expansion the most.

2. The section on "possible causes" and the one on "comorbidities" feature many outright comically useless statistics, such as its description of how "if the autistic child is an identical twin, the other will be affected 36% to 95% of the time," as well as how "various anxiety disorders tend to co-occur with ASDs, with overall comorbidity rates of 7–84%." These are an extremely wordy and unclear way to say that "there are no firm data" on an already extremely long and exhaustive article, and should be reason for a deeper restructuring of their respective sections.

3. The section on "prevention" features no useful information. As a matter of fact, it lacks a reason to exist.

4. The article is extremely long. I understand the topic is complex, but we have done great breaking it into more specific, self-containing articles, and I believe this should continue.

5. The article lacks mentions of most recent, online gatherings and communities relating to autism. I understand why this is done, but believe that they are worth mentioning nevertheless. This point is mostly here for completion's sake. ThaNook (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment.

1. I agree, the Burnout section can be bigger, but there is already an article about this. I wouldn't consider it being a symptom.

2. I don't have much to say about this that might not be helpful about this.

3. There isn't much on that. Unless there isn't more information, then it could disappear.

4. We could shorten Society and culture, Management, or Possible causes; we don't really know what causes autism so it could be shortened some.

5. We have Society and culture and its main article. Societal and cultural aspects of autism seems to discuss statistics the most and not the autistic community (there used to be an article for that). There is also Autism spectrum disorders in the media.

Maybe others can comment on this? Tonkarooson (discuss). 02:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of fringe theories from Possible Causes, removal of the Classification section most of the Common Characteristics section in favor of putting the ICD-11 and DSM-V-TR criteria in the diagnosis section (which is just an article link), reducing the Conditions correlated or comorbid to autism section to just the link to the main article, reducing the amount of time spent on ABA when there's the ABA page - the topic on the accuracy of the info was made by me right before making an account, but this article spends too much time on ABA, and by more than I thought it did when I made that topic, the Pharmacological interventions section could be reduced by removing sections relying on citations from at latest 2015, and in the same section, a 2018 source shouldn't be used as a statement on the validity of a 2022 source.

Continuing, the Alternative Medicine section's largest paragraph should be a single sentence, hopefully with more up to date sources, such as citation 301, as it is about research. I agree that the prevention section should be removed. The Temple Grandin quotes in Prognosis are irrelevant, and should be removed. The Epidemiology section has greater compliance with guidelines than the main article; this should be fixed, by updating the main article, and the Epidemiology section then removed, though this is a more extensive effort than the measures I've suggested to reduce length elsewhere. The Caregivers section of Society and Culture has exclusively scientific sources, and should therefor probably be somewhere else in the article (as well as being brought up to date.)

As this would remove most of the page, new information such as in point 5 could be added. Abbi043 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I seem to of forgotten to mention my intent of making suggestions on how the article could be shortened. This statement is to fix that. Abbi043 (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would say that anywhere where a percentage takes in a range of more than 50%, so anything that spans 32%-82%, is total rubbish and should not be cited at all. If the numbers for something are all over the place, unless we can say something about the numbers, such as explaining changes over time, explaining why some studies have much higher results than others, or something like that, we should just leave than out. Percentages and statistics are at times used to try to give the impression of knowledge, but at times they are the result of so poorly controlled studies that they mean absolutely nothing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  in the info box it says autism is 1 in 100 but this depends on where you are as it varies between country's and states and whatnot. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  • It depends on what definition is used, how robust the diagnostic system is, and other factors. Over the time the definition has been in some key ways loosened which has increased the rate of diagnosis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

i think its pointless that autism#Pre-diagnosis says things that later get seid in autism#Restricted and repetitive behaviors. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the lede be modified?

I think the current lede needs to better characterise ASD in ways consistent with the worldwide scientific consensus1 and related Wikipedia articles (e.g. ADHD). Currently, it describes it, only, as being marked by the presence of symptoms. This is problematic. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is defined and summarised by not merely the presence of these symptoms, but excessive and pervasive symptoms that are significantly impairing in multiple contexts/domains of life.1 While some people exhibit ASD symptoms that do not occur excessively or pervasively and/or are not impairing, this is not descriptive of ASD itself.

Thus, can we change the lede sentence to something like:

...a neurodevelopmental disorder marked by deficits in reciprocal social communication and the presence of restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior that are excessive and pervasive, significantly impairing in multiple contexts, and developmentally-inappropriate.

This lede extension is comparable to the article on ADHD and is consistent with the World Health Organisation and ICD-11 referenced above, that autism:

"is characterised by persistent deficits in the ability to initiate and to sustain reciprocal social interaction and social communication, and by a range of restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour, interests or activities that are clearly atypical or excessive for the individual’s age and sociocultural context. [developmentally inappropriate and excessive] The onset of the disorder occurs during the developmental period, typically in early childhood, but symptoms may not become fully manifest until later, when social demands exceed limited capacities. Deficits are sufficiently severe to cause impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning [impairing in multiple contexts] and are usually a pervasive feature of the individual’s functioning observable in all settings, although they may vary according to social, educational, or other context. Individuals along the spectrum exhibit a full range of intellectual functioning and language abilities". Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Correction on eye contact

The treatment of eye contact in autism within the article is factually incorrect. Avoiding eye contact is not a feature of autism, it is abnormalities in eye contact diverging from that found in the allistic population, which is notable. Autistic people can also make inappropriately long eye contact, may make eye contact while speaking, but not while listening, or may time eye contact entirely consciously. These features are not found in the allistic population, but none of these behaviours is avoidance of eye contact. Taken directly from the DSM 5: "A2 Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction; ranging from poorly integrated‐ verbal and nonverbal communication, through abnormalities in eye contact and body‐language, or deficits in understanding and use of nonverbal communication, to total lack of facial expression or gestures."

This being the case, the wording of the article should be modified accordingly. Urselius (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Avoidance of eye contact is a possible abnormality in eye contact. Otherwise, yeah. I suspect this article should be entirely redone at this point. Abbi043 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Avoidance of eye contact is only one of a number of possible abnormalities in eye contact behaviour. That is my point, treating it like it is the only one is incorrect, palpably incorrect. Given that I know of a number of people wrongly refused an autism diagnosis, by imperfectly educated clinicians, precisely because they made eye contact, it important that this misinformation is corrected wherever it occurs. Urselius (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. On a glance, I had interpreted your statement as excluding not making eye contact - on a second look, the statement is sending rather mixed messages. The clarification is still good. Abbi043 (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Modern severity ranking

Hello. Under the DSM 5, autism is currently ranked as level 1, level 2, or level 3, which a higher level meaning higher support needs (it could be thought of as level 1 being mild autism, level 2 being moderate, and level 3 being severe). I believe this is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Feel free to share your thoughts below. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the reasons for not merging the Asperger article would 'apply' here about as well as they applied there. The fact that that is 'not at all' does not change the consensus. Abbi043 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

R.e., recent edits on the lede

@Rlendog and colleagues' made several edits, but have not substantiated them in a summary or talk discussion from what I can find. The changes are flawed in both their methods and interpretation. I provide two examples.

First, claiming that autism is "characterised by impairments in [symptoms]" is factually incorrect and misrepresents the global scientific consensus cited. Indeed, citations for the ICD-11 and World Health Organisation specify that "Autism spectrum disorder is characterised by persistent deficits in the ability to initiate and to sustain reciprocal social interaction and social communication, and by a range of restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour... Deficits are sufficiently severe to cause impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning", which is consistent with the article before the changes by Rlendog and EJA94 as well as primary articles (e.g. ADHD). Impairments in this context are the resultant adverse consequences and distress that accumulate from expressions of the disorder's symptomology.

I.e., Impairment is not synonymous with symptoms or applicable in the symptoms themselves; it is the other way around "symptoms that cause impairments".

Second, the ICD-11 and WHO include "inflexible": "...and by a range of restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour". So this should not be excluded from the description to merely "restricted and repetitive". Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

R.e. Infobox Image

@LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle and colleagues expressed concerns about the inclusion of an outdated infobox picture.^1,2,3

A significant consensus was achieved on this talk page about excluding an infobox image entirely when the aforementioned one was removed. This was for several reasons, notably that this image among others proposed trivialised ASD, failed to portray the underlying nature of the disorder, were irrelevant, or were controversial. That discussion has been archived, but at least some of it can be accessed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism&oldid=1231111289

Thus, the article ought to remain in its current state (no image) due to the evident consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CCC as seen by the numerous people on here advocating it remaining on the page more recently. Consensus hasn't been reached in years past on the topic on removing the can stacking image despite numerous discussions. To me it just seems a topic that's subjective and will spark debate perhaps no matter what it is(including nothing)and it just so happened that after the topic was debated a number of times eventually at some point consensus occured in removal. This is why I'm advocating a poll, maybe of an increased length that initially suggested so we can avoid so much discussion on a trivial matter. Lest the image be whatever the group of people most willing to endlessly debate wants. (I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy and the issues with polls, hence my reasoning is given) LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on removal of that image is the most recent discussion if I recall correctly, but it may not appear so as it was oddly archived soon afterwards while the other discussions still remain open. There was also little if any debate there; the consensus was quite unanimous I think.

The presence of the image beforehand is rather irrelevant considering we have had no infobox image for an extended period now. That is more pertinent.

For example, see the article on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for a more comprehensive style of image, where it represents the underlying nature of the disorder (deficient self-regulation and the interconnectivity with its underlying executive functions), as opposed to merely a very superficial symptom that can trivialise the condition, like in the image you restored in this article. Hence partly why the absence of an image is preferred if and until a suitable candidate is identified. And there is no reason for an urgent restoration of an infobox image in general so the length of not having one is not a very good argument in my opinion. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Also this shouldn't be it's own topic. Unless you can give a good reason I'd suggest it's removal LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand but this was in regards to the recent edits made in the article, as well as being well after the last talk page took place. It also specifically concerns the apparency of a consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"Independent living is unlikely with more severe forms of the condition."

I removed this from the opening section, while it was in the way a bit in between what was being said, didn't have a source to it and "severe form of the condition" is quite a dated way of phrasing things. What is typically meant by this is that those on the Autism Spectrum can be faced with additional disabilities like an intellectual disability. It is also dated in that it can be your conclusion if you look at people with the diagnosis who love in institutions. This is biased towards those with a diagnosis. More and more there are plenty of folks out in the wild, living their live independently, who have an asd diagnosis. It's not a person's diagnosis that prevents them from living but their support needs not being met. 1Veertje (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, do autistic people not live institutions anymore? I've met many autistic people while being institutionalized. What do you mean by "this is biased towards those with a diagnosis"? ViolanteMD 18:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I trailed off for a bit. For a long time the dominant image of autistic people was that of someone who spend their entire life institutionalized, so mostly people who were institutionalized were diagnosed. But it's not something inherent to being autistic. Instead of calling it "severe autism" I think it's more reasonable to point to co-occuring intellectual disability. Both what was in the article and this now don't have a reference. I'm not sure how to go about better substantisting this. 1Veertje (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hope you're well. I have concerns about recategorization on the basis of the difference between "more well" autistic people and "less well" autistic people, especially if it's done with a label related to "intellect". I see your point though. It's just that this group of people were the original group identified as autistic and recategorizing them risks erasing their history and the foundation of our understanding of autism. Also, changing their diagnostic category without their input seems ethically questionable and would require a psychiatrist? I know with schizo spectrum topics one has to be open to being corrected by medical authorities, even if it's antithetical to lived experience. Is that not the case with autism topics? ViolanteMD 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There's like, a really big discussion on people who aren't autistic using "functioning labels" on autistic people and that largely being rejected by the autistic community. One trow away line about "severe autism = institutional life" is so crude when there's actually great strides a child can make as they grow up, especially when they do so in a supportive environment. Ann Memmott, an autism researcher and self-advocate commented on Twitter recently that she thinks the sentiment that "Autistic people have a different & valid way of communicating, and may thrive on routine & on their deep interests." is entirely absent in this article. 1Veertje (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Largely being rejected by the autistic community" does that include psychiatrists and the "profoundly autistic" themselves? I agree the line you deleted should be supported with evidence, but it should probably also be included because it's true for the group of people being described. The sentiment "XYZ people have a different and valid way of communicating" is also absent from any number of other psychiatric condition articles. I'm raising this point as someone with a schizo-spec disorder who is "higher-functioning" than most others with my label. I have found that we (the "high-functioning" group) can speak right over the people who are "profoundly" affected by the condition we're identifying with. The end result is that the language used to talk about the issue serves only the people who need the language least. ViolanteMD 10:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There is something of a double standard at work. Intellectually disabled people who are minimally sociable and minimally communicative are called severely autistic. However, intellectually disabled people who are very sociable and who communicate freely are not called 'severely allistic'. Are the people who are labelled 'severely autistic' in reality primarily intellectually disabled people who also exhibit autistic traits? Urselius (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I feel like your point highlights that there is a particular "kind" of "deficit" that defines autism which can affect people to varying degrees; this lines up with the diagnostic requirements in the DSM-V. The only thing I wanted to do here was make sure we're not talking over people who can't speak for themselves very easily. It seems important that we're realistic about what people who have severe forms need. "High-functioning" people can by definition fight for themselves. ViolanteMD 10:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my point is really whether 'severe autism' is a misnomer. Intellectually disabled people, whether or not they display autistic traits, tend - obviously there is a broad range of abilities - towards not being able to live independently. As so-called 'high functioning' autistics can very often live independent lives, in the same way that allistic people of average and above average intelligence can. Is the distinction between people who can live independent lives not whether or not they are autistic, but whether or not they are of sufficient intelligence to look after themselves? I do not think that the medical and academic communities have addressed this problem in any meaningful way. [User:Urselius|Urselius]] (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I see your point and I think it's an important one to make that gets lost in discussion often. I think teasing out the causes of an individual not being able to look after themselves is really difficult (maybe impossible). For an article about autism specifically, I think it might be more useful to readers to focus on the specific ways "severe autism" manifests and the limitations of it? Focusing on the autism-specific qualitative difference between "high-functioning" and "low-functioning" autistic people feels like it would help people be more educated on the topic. That way we're discussing the "full spectrum" in more detail? ViolanteMD 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a psychology today that more fully explains why the label "high-functioning" is outdated and rejected. People with an ASD diagnosis can have differing support needs. Those support needs not being met can make independent living impossible. It's not being autistic that then makes it impossible but a society hostile to those with differing needs. This student newspaper puts "severe autism" as just as much an attempt to put functioning labels on autistic individuals. 1Veertje (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's rejected, then why is a method of hierarchically organizing people with autism by "functional ability" included in the DSM-V? I don't think your sources are very reliable for this information and they don't propose any useful alternatives either. I understand and empathize with the push for more patient autonomy and self-determination but your edit removes useful information. Maybe we could work on rephrasing it better and finding better citations? ViolanteMD 14:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The article reflects the author's personal opinion that the proposed 'levels' of functioning in autism are acceptable. Sorry for only skimming it and not getting to the "levels" part. I find an inconsistency between this position and other points the author has made about this being something put upon autistic people.

I later found a more credible source in this Nature article, which, although it doesn't mention 'severe autism,' aligns closely with what I've been trying to convey: Autism + Environment = Outcome. The undesirable outcomes associated with institutionalization, for instance, stem from the environment rather than the autism itself. We cannot reduce the number of autistic people, but we can and should change the environment to be more supportive.

The trauma many autistic individuals experience often results from growing up in a world hostile to differences, or from comorbid conditions like intellectual disabilities. I view this as a policy failure, not a consequence of someone's autism being 'severe.' The vast majority of autistic individuals can live independently, and whether they can do so is not determined solely by their autism. Instead, the deciding factors often involve the availability of appropriate support and an accommodating environment. 1Veertje (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the article but it's written by a dental nurse and it's not in "Nature", it's just one of their myriad specialty publications. I totally empathize with the trauma you're talking about but I think it would be difficult to arrive at providing people with the support they need if we're not upfront about what they actually need and why. I agree that environments can affect outcomes but people with "profound autism" are that way regardless of the external environment. We can do more to help them be "successful" for sure but that wouldn't that start with being realistic about things?

The article you linked claims, "Assuming we are using these labels to determine what sort of support one of our autistic patients or colleagues may need, what do these words tell us? Nothing about whether the patient is verbal or non-verbal, has a learning disability, has auditory processing difficulties, or any of the other range of co-occurring conditions or difficulties associated with autism." These words are used clinically so they do tell us something about those points. People the term we're discussing apply to are more likely to have a learning disability for instance, that's just true. I appreciate this author's attempt to make things "easier" for autistic people but I still can't shake the feeling that we're losing something by letting the term autism be redefined by popular culture and laypeople. I fear what we're losing is required for this group of people to get the extra help they need. I appreciate you discussing this. ViolanteMD 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The laypeople you're talking over are the actual people with the condition you want to impose "realistic" expectations on. Out here in reality kids who were conciderd "profoundly autistic" have grown up adults like Temple Grandin and kids who went without a diagnoses because they didn't stand out have collapsed as adults under de weight of masking all the time. There's one kind of autism and it's a spectrum. This doesn't mean there's a high function end and a low functioning. It's meant to convay the varied and and individualized experience of autistic people. As the article explains: profound/severe/low-functioning doesn't actually tell us anything about someone being verbal or non-verbal, has a learning disability, has auditory processing difficulties, or any of the other range of co-occurring conditions or difficulties associated with autism. See also ASAN statement 1Veertje (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Name

I believe that the title of this article should be "Autism spectrum disorder" rather then simply autism. I believe this because other medical articles use the full, formal name for the condition they discuss, and autism is typically only used by itself in colloquial conversation. NOTE: I am not advocating changing all references to autism in the article to autism spectrum disorder. Only the article title. Please share your opinion with me below if you have the inclination. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you can refer to the latest (and if you scroll up, you'll see a whole history of article moves) move discussion from 17 May 2024.

The WP:COMMONNAME is just "Autism", which is why it is the title of this article. Whereas the full "Autism Spectrum Disorder", while being the full medical term is much less common.

You can refer to this Google Ngram from 1960 to 2022 (which basically has all books in existence) on seeing the wide difference between the use of "Autism" versus "Autism Spectrum Disorder". In there you can see that "Autism" has been around since the early 1960s and how "Autism Spectrum Disorder" has really only emerged around 2010 and is a small fraction of just "Autism". Raladic (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I retract my proposal. Thank you for bringing that information to me. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to note also that the opening sentence of the article gives Autism Spectrum Disorder as an alternative name and explains in the footnote that it's a medical diagnosis term. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Autism

Personal observations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Autistic person v. Person with autism: it doesn't matter but as an observation I was once observed by a professional as 'displaying some extreme male brain symptoms'. My experience of having the condition is that one tends to think of objects before thinking of a person which is one explanation of why we relate to people differently. It often seems to be assumed that we need 'levelling up' as opposed to merely being trained how to cope with both our relative inabilities AND our particular perceptual abilities (the ones that can lead to overload). It's a condition and it requires science to analyse it. Therefore political and identity reflections aren't tremendously helpful in providing solutions regarding societal integration and success, and should be confined to a separate article handling those aspects. So, 'movements' just tend to raise emotional temperature and symbols which attempt to capture some 'fluffy' concept only really add to the concept of 'otherness' rather than part of the human whole. An image of Greta Thunberg again tends to raise the emotional temperature especially as some people spot only celebrity value, not really a promotion for serious understanding of a complex subject. Many autistic people are notably apolitical. Perhaps picking a person from history like Barbara McClintock or Isaac Newton would be considered more neutral. Neutrality is key. Logos require some action/trait shorthand and a silhouette of a child stacking tins is at least unambiguous about hidden ability. An image of a child (the child in us all) is often a winner. The article in general is poor because it should give at least some historical perspective to the condition which would better allow people to make their own assessments. Here's an irony, 'Aspergers', a term which has now been superceded (a pity as it was named after an actual person) by an all-submerging 'Autism Spectrum' boasts a still-existing Wikipedia article which, in terms of its serious and nuanced handling of its subject is, in my perception, superior to the Autism article. Stillseekmygoal (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Before this contribution is hatted as "personal chat" and/or deleted, do you have any suggestion(s) on how this article could be improved (which is the purpose of this Talk page)? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

First sentence too long

My knowledge on this topic is next to nil so I will not be the one to edit it; but from a layman's perspective, the first sentence fails to depart a coherent definition. It has a whopping 51 words. After reading the rest of the article, I believe I know what restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour means, but the point of the lead is to be summary so that readers would not have to read through the entire article. I am also confused on what being developmentally "inappropriate" means. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Autism isn't something we can really depart a coherent definition for in the first couple of sentences of an article. I think what's there is pretty good, but if you can find a way to improve it, be bold. ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 18:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ca – I agree. I edited the introduction (diff). The first sentence was 411 characters; it is now 263. I achieved this reduction primarily by dividing the introductory sentence into two sentences. But I also strived for clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent prose. I made other edits that I will address separately. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In these edits (diff), I had several objectives, which I will try to address here. First, the following text appeared in the first paragraph prior to my edit:

As established by the global scientific consensus (e.g. World Health Organization, ICD-11 or DSM-5), autism is characterised by and summarised by not merely the presence of these symptoms, but excessive or atypical symptoms that are significantly impairing in multiple contexts/domains of life. While some people exhibit ASD symptoms that are not impairing, and, do not occur excessively or atypically, this is not descriptive of autism itself. Other common signs include difficulty with social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, along with perseverative interests, stereotypic body movements, rigid routines, and hyper- or hypo-reactivity to sensory input. Autism is clinically regarded as a spectrum disorder, meaning that it can manifest very differently in each person. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language. Because of this, there is wide variation in the support needs of people across the autism spectrum.

I edited the writing to achieve conciseness, clarity of expression, and accuracy, e.g., I rewrote the first sentence (which makes an important point) and moved it to a new second paragraph, which is now:

"A formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) according to either ICD or DSM criteria, requires not merely the presence of ASD symptoms, but symptoms that significantly impair functioning in multiple life domains."

I removed the second sentence because it was not supported by either reference and it was muzzy.

I rewrote the third sentence and moved it to its own paragraph. I was going to delete it because it essentially repeats information that is in the body of the article. From MOS:LEAD: "The lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents ... it gives the basics in a nutshell." But I will leave that determination to other editors.

I rewrote the last two sentences and moved them to the first paragraph since the content fits with the topic of the first paragraph (concisely explaining what autism is). "A paragraph is a self-contained unit of discourse ... dealing with a particular point or idea." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Checking claims.

An editor, @Димитрий Улянов Иванов:, has repeatedly insisted that this interpretation of the diagnostic criteria for autism be prominently placed in the lead, as follows: "As has been established in previous talk discussions largely ignored in their edit, so I won't repeat them in full here, symptoms must cause impairment and developmental inappropriateness are prerequisites for diagnosis of autism. This is substantiated by the ICD-11 (WHO) and DSM-5 cited, as examples. (3) Inflexible is in fact part of the definition (see WHO)."

I have done a word search of the texts of both the DSM-5 and ICD-11 autism criteria for "developmental inappropriateness" and cannot find this phrase employed in either. Where does it come from? If it is OR it should not be used here. Urselius (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on that. The World Health Organization, ICD-11 states: "Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions that are outside the expected range of typical functioning given the individual’s age and level of intellectual development". See: https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624 . That means developmentally (or age) inappropriate. It is cited in the article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The particular phrase "developmental inappropriateness", does not occur in the DSM-5 or ICD-11 wording, I was financed by a WHO grant as a researcher for a year. The DSM-5 does not use the term "impairment", but substitutes 'deficits". I would much prefer that the wording used in the manuals was used instead of an interpretation. I also consider that your particular phrasing is rather over blunt and exaggerates the wording in the manuals, which is, presumably, carefully nuanced and exact. The quotation you use above seems more appropriate to me, i.e., "Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions that are outside the expected range of typical functioning given the individual’s age and level of intellectual development". Urselius (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes for the definition we should WP:STICKTOSOURCES of what the DSM-5 or ICD-11 use and use their wording, especially in a case like this were WP:MEDRS applies, rather than add an interpretation that may change the words or imply more meaning. Raladic (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(1) I believe you are correct that the term "inappropriate" may not used, having another look at the sources, so I apologise if I misinterpreted the ICD-11. However, "developmental" is repeatedly used to characterise ASD and specifically in this context.

Note that the DSM states "Persistent difficulties in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication as manifested by all of the following: Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manger that is appropriate for the social context". So I am not certain about the term inappropriate being incorrect.

(2) That is incorrect. First, the ICD-11 and World Health Organization state "The symptoms result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning" and " Deficits are sufficiently severe to cause impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning".

Second, the DSM-5 (citation: https://iacc.hhs.gov/about-iacc/subcommittees/resources/dsm5-diagnostic-criteria.shtml) states: "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning."

So yes, impairment is to be used. "Deficits" refers to the description of the symptom, not the resulting adverse consequences (impairment). Even if the DSM-5 didn't specify impairment (it does), it was released in 2013 and thus the updated and global ICD-11 should be relied on. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment to consistency with the diagnostic reliable sources (DSM-5 & ICD-11), and overall I like ICD-11's approach (dimensional, international) better than DSM-5, even though I live in the USA.

Re: "inappropriate" - the article is written in American English (although there is not an editor's note to that effect), so we should look at what inappropriate means in the U.S.

inappropriate, adj.

Merriam-Webster Unabridged:

"not appropriate : unbecoming, unsuitable" (unbecoming means "not becoming : unsuitable, indecorous, improper").

Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary: "abnormal".

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

"unsuitable or improper."

Thesaurus.com - inappropriate Synonyms:

disproportionate,improper,incorrect,irrelevant,tasteless,unseemly,unsuitable,wrong

OED is closer to what you intend (I think), e.g., "unfitting" or "unsuitable to the particular case" although OED is grounded in British English, so the denotations and connotations of the word are a bit different than in the United States.

OED:

"not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper."

Alternatives? I like mismatched or not adaptive, although I'm sure there are others (maladaptive is technically correct, but it carries a somewhat pejorative connotation - that's a subjective judgement though). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions and for contextualising that word, I stand corrected. Perhaps we could use the explicit sentence given by the ICD: "that are clearly atypical or excessive for the individual’s age and sociocultural context" or something alike?

By the way, on a separate note, I just want to emphasise the importance of ensuring the article always mentions impairment alongside symptom expression for defining ASD. This may need to be included in the first sentence, or at the very least, keeping it early in the lede. Unfortunately, there is a trend among some advocates online to focus exclusively on traits or symptoms yet both are equally important. If an individual presents with far more than enough symptoms, but are not impaired, they are not diagnosable and thus do not have autism. On the contrary, if they did not meet sufficient enough symptoms but were impaired they may or may not be diagnosable depending on the clinician - in such a case, it may be based on the extent to which they are impaired as well as the gap between meeting the symptom threshold (e.g. 1 symptom short). We would expect this from a dimensional disorder upon which we are imposing a categorisation or dichotomy. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"We would expect this from a dimensional disorder upon which we are imposing a categorisation or dichotomy." - Well said. I do think it's important to appreciate the lived experience of people with autism-spectrum disorders, including those who do not satisfy the arbitrary and rigid (especially in the case of DSM-5) categorical criteria that divides people into Yes or No categories: "You have a disorder" or "You do not have a disorder, so you're perfectly fine, what are you complaining about?"

Autism diagnosis is a great example of this problem. Many adults and adolescents who had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, for example, all of sudden no longer had a disorder upon publication of DSM-5. So are they "normal" people who should not expect any special consideration or understanding? Of course not. (I assume you would agree.)

I'm not saying we should include original research. I am saying we should not reify categorical diagnoses. In 25 years we will look at all this much differently, along the lines of NIMH's Research Diagnostic Criteria model and research approach.

Finally I agree that ignoring deficits and functional impairment does a disservice to the suffering of many people with autistic spectrum disorders. It's similar to "all adults with ADHD are incredibly creative people - it's a blessing!" Anyway, I'm rambling. ;o) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, I completely agree. The DSM and ICD indeed have major flaws in them and I would agree with representing the status of research in the field rather than focusing exclusively on the diagnostic manuals. After all, the DSM is not leading the research, but follows it and often a decade or two behind where the research is at the time. The decisions made by the APA are also political, not just scientifically based, so its hard to know where this will go in the subsequent version.

While I am not accustomed to the complex nuance of this with ASD, I can certainly attest to these problems in my field of ADHD where the DSM still frame it rather trivially, as merely inattention and of activity level, rather than as a far more complex disorder of executive functioning and self-regulation. Another example is the difficulty we have had convincing the higher-level DSM committees, for instance, to discard the value of the age of onset criteria due to problems related to recollection of onset as well as reconciling it with S-ADHD cases, or with including other symptoms (such as emotional dysregulation) in the criteria. Consequently, in the ADHD article here on Wikipedia there is a balance between the scientific literature consensus on framing ADHD, the view of people with lived experience of ADHD, and the view of diagnostic criteria. I hope a similar approach can be adopted here, if that could work! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Bravo! An astute, compassionate analysis that was a pleasure to read. Thank you. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 01:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

PUT THE CAN CHILD BACK

he is our icon 2600:1006:B0C2:5CFF:D171:CF51:9477:3DB5 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My icon is of St. Demetrios of Thessalonica. Urselius (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, he's been a staple of the article for quite some time, put him back. 82.132.6.172 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes please bring him back 🙏 209.33.223.23 (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed! 2601:1C2:1000:D2F0:1477:3E01:5E5B:A5AF (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Full agreement yes. No it doesn't represent every single autistic person but neither does the main image on many medical pages where you can only show 1 thing. Personally I don't think little symbols don't represent much at all LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Put him back. Bring our troops back home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.245.98.198 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is very obviously a coordinated effort and will not be taken seriously. TheBritinator (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't know that for sure. These may just be unrelated people who all agree about the image. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, TheBritinator: these comments appeal to tradition and argumentum ad populum without presenting actual arguments/discussion of the image, as was done above. Evedawn99 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a fair point. If the OP and the subsequent responders may attempt to give a justification for their position on the image, that would be great. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerns with recent edits

@Anthony2106, I believe you are editing in good faith, but please do not base an edit on your personal conjecture when it contradicts the sources and please only mark edits as "minor" if they are correcting obvious vandalism or a spelling mistake, regardless of the number of words changed. Doing so is problematic as they do not appear on the watchlist for peers to review. Regards, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When quoting the DSM or ICD we should use the word symptoms but other then that we should avoid it, Or at least not have it on the very first sentence. On this page we don't say "people with autism spectrum disorder" like the DSM/ICD say. we use different words to the books. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No, but we do use "ASD" as an acronym or "autism" just as the ICD and DSM do, as I recall. You haven't demonstrated why the use of the term "symptoms" per the scientific consensus is problematic. It is a good term, as it denotes the behavioural/cognitive expressions of the disorder and distinguishes them from impairments. In the first sentence, "symptoms of" indicates that the following e.g. "deficient reciprocal social communication" is a symptom dimension with a variety of ways it can manifest and removing it would no longer reflect our sources. Scientific papers also tend to refer to symptoms. I would also like to note that, in your edit, you removed references to the severity of ASD, which hasn't been justified and also contradicts the scientific consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"symptoms" are for bad things, like the flu or covid and maybe mental health disorders but not neurodevelopmental ones. me removing the word "severity" was slightly bad, but not too bad, you see I don't like to "rate" autism or make it sound 100% like a linear scale as its also a rainbow/spectrum each colour is a different autistic trait. but it is true that some people are higher support needs so saying "severity" is fine but I prefer support needs Anthony2106 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you that symptoms are not "for bad things" and are not exclusive to physical health issues. To take an example statement from the ICD-11 in the characterisation of autism under the World Health Organization:

"The onset of the disorder occurs during the developmental period, typically in early childhood, but symptoms may not become fully manifest until later, when social demands exceed limited capacities".

And from the DSM5:

"Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning."

The global scientific consensus seems clear here.

Support needs and severity have different meanings, and are not interchangeable; both should be mentioned alongside eachother as is the case in the article currently, at least in my view. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlsoWukai what do you think about the word symptoms? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

and whats the difference between "excessive for the individual's age" and "excessive for the persons age"? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Person" is a less stilted word than "individual".

I don't think we have good reason to avoid talk of "symptoms". AlsoWukai (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think we have good reason to avoid talk of "symptoms"." --> so we should talk about "symptoms"?

also i personly dont see the diffrence between person and individual so maybe we should folow what Димитрий Улянов Иванов seid and just coppy the DSM/ICD Anthony2106 (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that individual refers to the subject person with ASD while person could technically refer to just anyone, such as a family member being affected instead. Regardless, individual is the word used by the WHO, ICD-11 and DSM-5 and should therefore be used to better represent the sources accuratley. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов yeah but this page says autistic people unlike the books because most autistic people like it that way. so we often do what autistics like on this page, and i'm sure most autistic people don't use the word symptoms Anthony2106 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure many are operating well intentioned. So, I hope you really do start doing what autistic people would like on this page. But, I guess you can't please everyone all the time. HarmonyA8 (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The term ‘symptoms’ reflects the scientific consensus and sources cited. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it should always reflect the data, so that’s not a valid reason to contradict the sources. We shouldn’t be determining facts based on people’s subjective opinions as to whether they like a certain fact or not. That said, I understand the term ‘autistic’ is preferred but I don’t dispute that because it has been used in peer reviewed articles. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

The statement in the introduction of the Autism entry, "There are many theories about the causes of autism; it is highly heritable and mainly genetic, but many genes are involved, and environmental factors may also be relevant," may be seen as misleading and ethically concerning to vulnerable individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and their families. The most current description of autism’s aetiology is as follows: "Autism does not have a single known cause and is considered a multifactorial condition arising from a complex interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental factors." Alternatively, Wikipedia's entry for 'Causes of Autism' offers a similarly comprehensive statement: "Many causes of autism, including environmental and genetic factors, have been recognized or proposed, but understanding of the theory of causation of autism is incomplete. Attempts have been made to incorporate the known genetic and environmental causes into a comprehensive causative framework."

Within the 'Autism' entry, it would also be sensible to remove the suggested reading of the 'Refrigerator Mother Theory' from the start of the aetiology section on 'Early Life', as it risks conflating outdated concepts. Otherwise, it would appear equally appropriate to suggest a reading on 'Eugenics' under the 'Genetics' section to offer a more balanced perspective of the criticisms of each view. Furthermore, it may further mislead that the 'Early Life' section is considerably shorter than the 'Genetics' section, with little discussion on environmental influences on neurodevelopment, like prenatal stress and its effects on neural inflammation and maladaptation. The 'Causes of Autism' entry already acknowledges these adjustments.

Evidence indicates that autism’s aetiology is multifactorial, with recent research suggesting that at least 50% of causes are environmental (Yenkoyan, Mkhitaryan1, & Bjørklund, 2024). In this sense, the environment plays a crucial role in triggering neurodevelopmental maladaptations in individuals with a biological predisposition. While genetic predispositions may exist, they may remain unexpressed unless activated by environmental factors. In relation to inheritance, epigenetic changes—modifications in gene expression due to external influences—are not yet fully understood (Boyce & Kobor, 2015; Lickliter & Witherington, 2017; Speybroeck, 2002; Masterpasqua, 2009; Goldsmith, et al., 1997). The fact that gene studies dominate autism research (Sweileh, et al., 2016) shows not only that no universally consistent genetic markers are definitive contributors to autism (Havdahl et al., 2021; Rylaarsdam et al., 2019) but also that other crucial factors are being under-researched. However, it is well understood that stressors, toxins, chemicals, advanced parental age, and other factors significantly impact fetal neurodevelopment (Yenkoyan, Mkhitaryan1, & Bjørklund, 2024; Hsiao et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2023; Yin & Schaaf, 2017; Grove et al., 2019; Peretti et al., 2019; Gentile et al., 2013; Dawson, 2008; Liew, et al., 2016; Singletary, 2015). Therefore, framing environmental influences as potentially relevant understates their importance.

It is central to highlight that, while genetic research may assist with early screening, it offers little practical help for most individuals with ASD, especially given that genetic or MRI screenings remain largely inaccessible due to the heterogeneity of ASD biological presentations. Thus, they are unlikely to become widely available. The focus on genetics may also detract from the tangible benefits of early interventions and environmental adjustments, which can alleviate ASD symptoms and provide preventive strategies. Furthermore, it is sometimes understood as reinforcing eugenic ideas and parental stigma as well as limiting reproductive expectations for families with ASD children.

Moreover, genetic testing may encourage pharmacological interventions. This aligns with the medical model, including institutions like the WHO and the National Health Service (NHS), which has historically emphasised pharmacological treatments for psychiatric conditions such as depression and schizophrenia, often misleading the public to believe that these disorders are primarily organic, devoid of significant environmental influences. For the past few decades, this approach has contributed to medication misuse while downplaying or neglecting non-pharmacological interventions that address and enrich environmental factors (Torres et al., 2023; Moncrieff et al., 2023; Os, et al., 2008; Deacon, 2013). It would raise ethical concerns to extend this model to neurodevelopmental conditions like ASD, especially when there is substantial evidence demonstrating the strong environmental component of autism. This may be concerning if physicians are inadequately trained in pharmacological interventions for ASD (Austriaco et al., 2019; Unigwe et al., 2017; Mason, 2018), and there is limited evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of pharmacological treatments in ASD due to highly individualised ASD presentations (Brandford, et al., 2019; Deb et al., 2023; Persico, et al., 2021). Although this is noted in this entry, it is not directly linked to the genetic research on ASD.

Thus, the notion that autism is "mainly genetic" not only raises ethical concerns but also oversimplifies the complexity of the disorder, limiting the potential for understanding and addressing the significant environmental contributions critical to early intervention, including during pregnancy.

Austriaco, K., Aban, I., Willig, J., Kong, M. (2019). Contemporary Trainee Knowledge of Autism: How Prepared Are Our Future Providers? Front Pediatr. Apr 26;7:165. doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00165.

Branford, D., Gerrard, D., Saleem, N., Shaw, C., & Webster, A. (2019). Stopping over-medication of people with intellectual disability, Autism or both (STOMP) in England part 1 – history and background of STOMP. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 13, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/AMHID-02-2018-0004

Boyce, W., & Kobor, M. (2015). Development and the epigenome: The 'synapse' of gene-environment interplay. Developmental Science, 18(1), 1-23.

Dawson, G. (2008). Early behavioral intervention, brain plasticity, and the prevention of autism spectrum disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 775-803. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000370

Deacon, B. J. (2013). The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 846–861.

Deb, S., Limbu, B., Unwin, G. L., & Weaver, T. (2023). The Use of Medication for Challenging Behaviors in People with Intellectual Disabilities: The Direct Care Providers’ Perspective. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(3), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2023.2192691

Gentile, I., Zappulo, E., Militerni, R., Pascotto, A., Borgia, G., & Bravaccio, C. (2013). Etiopathogenesis of autism spectrum disorders: Fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. Medical Hypotheses, 81(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.04.002.

Goldsmith, H., Gottesman, I., & Lemery, K. (1997). Epigenetic approaches to developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 365-387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579497002095.

Grove, J., et al. (2019). Identification of common genetic risk variants for autism spectrum disorder. Nature Genetics, 51, 431-444. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0344-8.

Havdahl, A., Niarchou, M., Starnawska, A., Uddin, M., van der Merwe, C., & Warrier, V. (2021). Genetic contributions to autism spectrum disorder. Psychological Medicine, 51(13), 2260-2273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721000192

Hsiao, E. Y., McBride, S. W., Hsien, S., Sharon, G., Hyde, E. R., McCue, T., et al. (2013). Microbiota modulate behavioral and physiological abnormalities associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Cell, 155(7), 1451-1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.11.024.

Jiang, M., Lu, T., Yang, K., Li, X., Zhao, L., Zhang, D., et al. (2023). Autism spectrum disorder research: Knowledge mapping of progress and focus between 2011 and 2022. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1096769.

Kim, S., & Kim, K. (2023). Effect of media exposure on social development in children. Global Pediatric Health, 10.

Lickliter, R., & Witherington, D. C. (2017). Towards a truly developmental epigenetics. Human Development, 60(2/3), 124-138.

Liew, Z., Ritz, B., Virk, J., & Olsen, J. (2016). Maternal use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and risk of autism spectrum disorders in childhood: A Danish national birth cohort study. Autism Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1591.

Mason, D., McConachie, H., Garland, D., Petrou, A., Rodgers, J., & Parr, J. R. (2018). Predictors of quality of life for autistic adults. Autism Research, 11, 1138-1147.

Masterpasqua, F. (2009). Psychology and Epigenetics. Review of General Psychology, 13(3), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016301

Moncrieff, J., Cooper, R. E., Stockmann, T., et al. (2023). The serotonin theory of depression: A systematic umbrella review of the evidence. Molecular Psychiatry, 28, 3243-3256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01661-0.

Os, J., Rutten, B., & Poulton, R. (2008). Gene-environment interactions in schizophrenia: review of epidemiological findings and future directions. Schizophrenia bulletin, 34 6, 1066-82 . https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbn117.

Peretti, S., Mariano, M., Mazzocchetti, C., Mazza, M., Mc, P., Pianella, A., & Valenti, M. (2019). Diet: The keystone of autism spectrum disorder? Nutritional Neuroscience, 22, 825-839. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028415X.2018.1464819.

Persico, A., Ricciardello, A., Lamberti, M., Turriziani, L., Cucinotta, F., Brogna, C., Vitiello, B., & Arango, C. (2021). The pediatric psychopharmacology of autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review - Part I: The past and the present. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110326.

Rylaarsdam, L., & Guemez-Gamboa, A. (2019). Genetic causes and modifiers of autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2019.00385.

Singletary, W. M. (2015). An integrative model of autism spectrum disorder: ASD as a neurobiological disorder of experienced environmental deprivation, early life stress, and allostatic overload. Neuropsychoanalysis, 17(2), 81-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2015.1092334

Speybroeck, L. (2002). From epigenesis to epigenetics: The case of C. H. Waddington. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 981, 61-81.

Sweileh, W.M., Al-Jabi, S.W., Sawalha, A.F. et al. (2016). Bibliometric profile of the global scientific research on autism spectrum disorders. SpringerPlus 5, 1480. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3165-6

Torres, G., Mourad, M., Iqbal, S., Moses-Fynn, E., Pandita, A., Siddhartha, S., et al. (2023). Conceptualizing epigenetics and the environmental landscape of autism spectrum disorders. Genes, 14, 1734. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14091734.

Unigwe, S., et al. (2017). GPs’ confidence in caring for their patients on the autism spectrum: An online self-report study. British Journal of General Practice, 67, e445-e452.

Yenkoyan, Konstantin & Mkhitaryan, Meri & Bjorklund, Geir. (2024). Environmental Risk Factors in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Narrative Review. Current medicinal chemistry. 31. 10.2174/0109298673252471231121045529.

Yin, J., and Schaaf, C. P. (2017). Autism genetics – an overview. Prenat Diagn, 37: 14–30. doi: 10.1002/pd.4942. Joliverat (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment but I'm sorry to say it does not stand up to serious inspection. It is advisable to take the opportunity to review the available aetiological evidence once again. You have given a long list of references - I have had a look at some - and they do not appear to support if not contradicting your claims. To give a couple examples, you cited a meta-analytic review published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, which concluded: "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a highly heritable and heterogeneous group of neurodevelopmental phenotypes diagnosed in more than 1% of children".

As indicated by professional associations and the Nature journal itself:

"Heritability is a concept that summarizes how much of the variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors"" (1)

"Heritability is a measure of how well differences in people’s genes account for differences in their traits" (2)

The abstract of Singletary (2015) states: "Converging evidence suggests that ASD is a potentially reversible neurodevelopmental disorder in which neurobiological factors – not poor parenting – interfere with the child–caregiver interaction". Indeed, the global scientific consensus classifies the disorder as neurodevelopmental and not psychosocial (e.g., the ICD-11, World Health Organization, DSM-5 cited in the article).

None of the sources you cite contribute any evidence of any kind regarding causality for environmental factors like actaminophen. You appear to be struggling with the distinction between simple correlative research and the much deeper ontologic questions of how diagnoses should be framed.

• The Liew et al. (2015) meta-analysis note a correlation between exposure and ASD diagnosis. This is zero evidence of any kind on causation, and does not establish that the subsequent diagnosis is correct.

Neurodevelopmental disorders do not arise from any such unsupportable environmental perspectives as claimed by critics. Indeed, studies of twins are an excellent means of testing such environmental hyotheses about disorders. Modern statistics can be applied to such data sets that can discern the extent to which variation in the population in certain traits or disorders can be attributed to common, shared, or rearing environment, to unique events that occur only to the affected family member, or to genetics. The hypotheses of our critics clearly fall within the common or shared environmental variation tested in such twin studies. To date, twin studies consistently have found no significant contribution of shared, social and familial environments to the symptom expression of ASD and other NDDs. They do find a small but significant contribution of unique environmental events (some or all of which can be due to biohazards experienced by the child as well as brain injury events). But they consistently find a substantial genetic contribution to neurodevelopmental disorders within the population.

These numerous studies, and many other lines of evidence, directly refute the nonexpert folk wisdom offered by here as to the origins of these disorders. To publish comments that ASD is a fictitious neurodevelopmental disorder or merely a conflict between today's Huckleberry Finns and their caregivers is tantamount to declaring the earth flat, the laws of gravity debatable, and the periodic table in chemistry a fraud.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: I have been involved in network meta-analyses conducted by the UK National Institute of Care Excellence (NICE), a guideline group the applicant contests, and have served periodically in NICE panels discussing pharmacological and psychosocial treatment solutions for ADHD. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The entry on 'Causes of Autism' already reflects the change I have advocated for, despite the doubts you raise regarding the scientific evidence and literature I have provided (which I acknowledge). Your response implies that the current statement in the 'Causes of Autism' entry—"Many causes of autism, including environmental and genetic factors, have been recognized or proposed, but understanding of the theory of causation of autism is incomplete. Attempts have been made to incorporate the known genetic and environmental causes into a comprehensive causative framework"—is not supported by evidence and is misleading. This appears contradictory to your own response, indicating a possible misunderstanding.

Thus, I suggest to change "There are many theories about the causes of autism; it is highly heritable and mainly genetic, but many genes are involved, and environmental factors may also be relevant," to "Many causes of autism, including environmental and genetic factors, have been recognized or proposed, but understanding of the theory of causation of autism is incomplete. Attempts have been made to incorporate the known genetic and environmental causes into a comprehensive causative framework."

I am not suggesting that autism is caused by psychosocial factors; I have consistently emphasised the complex interaction between biological predispositions and environmental risks. However, your response appears to emphasise a purely organic perspective of autism's aetiology, whereas my stance aligns with the prevailing scientific literature, which acknowledges the multifactorial nature of the disorder while still recognising it as a neurodevelopmental condition. This is clearly supported in the existing Wikipedia entry on the 'Causes of Autism', and I encourage you to review it. Your understanding of my suggestion and the ethical concerns you raise show you have completely misinterpreted it.

Environmental risk factors, as you may know, are challenging to test and may often be underreported. This difficulty is a central issue in the philosophy of science, and it is essential for any scientist, if any, to acknowledge this complexity when making definitive statements, especially about vulnerable groups of individuals.

Furthermore, the literature on pharmacological treatments for ASD indicates that ASD cannot be directly compared to ADHD in terms of treatment. ASD requires a far more nuanced approach due to the highly individualised nature of the condition, a point acknowledged in the 'Autism' entry itself, which raises concerns about the efficacy of generalised pharmacological treatments for ASD. Therefore, there seems to be a disconnect between your specialisation and this area of discussion. Joliverat (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the main points of my rebuttal. In your application, you claim that environmental causes appear to account for as high as 50% of variation in ASD symptoms and that genetic factors may not be relevant, thus implying a significant possibility that it is down entirely to environmental factors. This is not only inconsistent with the scientific consensus but the very references you gave to substantiate it in fact support that the disorder is highly genetic. You were also implying cause from correlational evidence about prenatal exposure to toxins. This is exactly why the article is correct in stating they are "potentially" relevant, so it is not misleading.

My contention is not that environmental factors are irrelevant. But to portray the evidence as uncertain as you do and remove statements that it is highly genetic has little support in the literature.

The disorder is classified as neurodevelopmental, differentiating it from psychosocial ones, as its aetiology is related to brain development and not the social/familial environment. Yes, non-shared environmental brain injuries might still be relevant but just something to keep in mind. Claims on other Wikipedia articles are not de facto evidence of something reprehensible taking place on this article; at best this is a form of scientific buck-passing for it can generate no useful understanding of the evidence and its context. The evidence is contained within the citations, and references you have provided contradict your claims in ways aligning with the conclusions on this article.

ADHD is in fact a highly individualised disorder due to the dimensionality of the underlying executive functions, justr as ASD is. Autism is indeed not my speciality but the fields substantially overlap as both being neurodevelopmental disorders, so the literature is understandable to me, and I was mainly trying to clarify how you are mispresenting the literature. Personally, I don't think my involvement with NICE reaches the degree to a conflict with regards to your contention with the institution, but that's not for me to say.

To conclude I don’t think it’s an argument worth pursuing any further as it will just take valuable time away from other projects and is unlikely to be convincing. The debate here could go on for quite awhile. And One could write an extensive review on these issues and I certainly dont have the time or interest in doing so. So I will just leave it at the comments I have provided already. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable time and review. Genes will do. Joliverat (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)