Talk:Autism/Archive 1

I wrote, "At the severe end of the spectrum is low-functioning autism, where autism co-occurs with mental retardation, to Asperger's syndrome and finally a shading into normality and perhaps then hypersocialization." 172.216.161.64 edited this to, "At the severe end of the spectrum is low-functioning autism, which can cause severe-profound impairments in many areas, to a milder form of autism known as Asperger's syndrome and finally a shading into typicality and perhaps then hypersocialization." Although low-functioning autism is technically defined as autism with additional mental retardation, I chose to keep a trimmed form of the contributor's slightly more sensitive phrasing: "At the severe end of the spectrum is low-functioning autism, with profound impairments in many areas, to Asperger's syndrome, and finally a shading into normality and perhaps then hypersocialization." I considered a milder form of autism known as to be redundant since this whole article is about autistic conditions, and the vector from a profoundly impacted condition to normality implies that Asperger's syndrome is the milder condition in between.

For some reason, 172.216.161.64 also changed the links to Asperger's syndrome from simply [[Asperger's syndrome]] to [[Asperger syndrome|Asperger's syndrome]] despite Asperger syndrome's being a redirect to Asperger's syndrome.

I wrote, "The disorder diagnosed as Autistic Disorder in the DSM-IV-TR and Childhood Autism in the ICD-10 may share an underlying genetic cause and similar neurodevelopment as Asperger's syndrome. Behaviorally, certain characteristics identify the autistic syndrome:" 172.216.161.64 revised this to, "The disorder diagnosed as Autistic Disorder in the DSM-IV-TR and Childhood Autism in the ICD-10 may to share the same underlying genetic cause and neurodevelopment as Asperger's syndrome and other PDDs. Behaviorally, certain characteristics identify the autistic syndrome:" As mentioned in the section Autistic Spectrum and Pervasive Development Disorders, autism and Asperger's syndrome probably do not share a common etiology with some of the other PDDs like Rett's syndrome and childhood disintegrative disorder. Additionally, autism and Asperger's syndrome may share similar causes, but the neurodevelopment is not the same. Asperger's syndrome seems to show a less pathological version of the neurodevelopment found in Kanner's autism. This may be because people with Asperger's syndrome inherit fewer autistic genes than those with a more disabling form of autism (i.e., the DSM-IV-TR's Autistic Disorder and the ICD-10's Childhood Autism).

I restored the traits "Indiscriminant social interaction" and "Reduced ability to understand the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of others" because they are quite common for people on the autistic spectrum. Whereas some autistic people withdraw, others, including at least a few I've met, engage in an almost indiscriminate interaction with others that still conveys a misunderstanding of social conventions. Also, the inability to understand the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs (i.e., mental states) of others may be psychological cause of the social impairments. Whether this is simply due to an ability to read facial expressions and body language or not is another question; my understanding is that they are intertwined.

I restored, "Poor use and understanding of nonverbal communication," which expresses more than, "Reduced ability to understand facial expression and body language," and returned it to its orginal category because not only do autistic people misunderstand other people's nonverbals but they also use nonverbals poorly or have their own body language misread. I placed it with Language impairment instead of Social impairment because I consider language to include both verbal and nonverbal communication, a broad use to be sure. The social impairment category is meant to show overall areas of deficit in social performance. These categories, of course, overlap. This listing of traits is meant to be descriptive rather than diagnostic or etiological. --24.217.183.224 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have an issue with the claim that Autism leads to poverty. The citations which supposedly back this up suggest that people in poverty get worse care/treatment, not that untreated or undertreated people are poor as a result of their condition. Bardbrain

I'll quote the article first and comment below:

"Diagnoses of ADHD together with autism or Asperger Syndrome are becoming increasingly common in children. In young children, the two conditions can appear similar. However, as children age, differences emerge between the two conditions. Children with typical autism become more withdrawn, while with a suitable environment hyperactivity reduces. In either event, problems with social skills can develop.

By contrast, children with ADHD rarely become calmer with age but often develop social and communication skills to a normal level. Any issues with social skills experienced by children with ADHD may have other causes. Examples include low self-esteem or difficulty with quiet, constructive social interaction."

There are many misunderstandings about autism. Sometimes I feel ADD is even more misunderstood - and yes I hate that it was changed to ADHD years back, I'll explain. Hyperactivity is, I can not stress this enough: just ONE possible symptom of a much more complex condition. Why this is so personal for me, is that I have the hypoactive form and it is suggested that there are just as many of us as our more outgoing counterparts. We may fidget and display every single other symptom as children, but because we don't possess the sterotypical one of "bouncing off the walls" we slip through the system. I was finally diagnosed at age 17, having known there was something 'different' about me for quite some time - no matter how hard I tried, or how much I wanted to be an Honor Student, I scraped by with C's and D's (but easily aced Psychology - and the other more interesting classes with the help of Ritalin). Now, I read into Asperger's Syndrome and did find it incredibly similar, and I sometimes wonder still if I have it or autism instead. I am extremely withdrawn, am unable to read social cues, am honest to a fault, though the occassional outburst comes out that is usually called "inappropriate", etc. However; what keeps me on the ADD side of the fence is the thinking process which is at the core of what ADD is reallly all about, not the superficial and "cosmetic" behavior. I see the world very abstractly, and artistically - never got through Algebra - though I could've told you it was an arabic word. And despite our differences, me and my hyperactive counterparts seem to just 'sense' each other (I coined the term "Addar"), we are very spontaneous, and have trouble focusing, another stereotype which is true to a certain extent, but more complex than just not being able to concentrate. Anyway, since I have a very biased view on this I thought I'd put it here on the discussion page for review. I also hope someone can takes something away from the anecdotes and tell me if I reallly might have Asperger's syndrome, or autism. All I know is that, whatever I have, it is really lonely. Not: "I haven't had a date in 6 months lonely", but I haven't even had a friend, or just someone to talk to in ten years lonely, and could never seem to connect to any of the friends I had like others can. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't for personal stuff I realize, but it is for edification, and that's what I would like to do here. And the stuff like: "have difficulty with quiet, constructive social interaction" bring certain knee-jerk expletives to my mind. Even to a child that is extremely condescending - the "constructive" word particularly. ADDers have no trouble being constructive in their own non-linear way. Plus it is all based on the erroneous assumption that all ADDers are loud and obnoxious. Khirad^talk 02:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Spectrum (disambiguation) lists two psychological spectra: this and the bipolar spectrum. Are there any others?

This paragraph in the article contains an error: "These autistic traits may be beneficial for some disciplines like science, mathematics, and engineering because they require rote memorization, which some autistic individuals might show a marked proficiency in." Mathematics (at least for those students that understand it well) does not require rote memorization. Students that do not understand math typically compensate by rote memorization, but the best math students have to memorize hardly anything at all. Autistic traits that are beneficial for mathematics at the graduate level are attention for detail and perseverence of interest and focus. MvH June 16, 2006.

Why, in the section discussing social impairment, are there three references to the same essential behavior, but none about autistic's higher propensity to react to stimuli with violence? DId that particular fact get left out intentionally, or is this another example of PC editors ignoring reality? 70.115.211.122 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)tell it like it is and stop kowtowing to overly sensitive individuals with agendas

It's my understanding that not ALL forms of autism include this trait. Asperger's Syndrome patients are supposedly LESS prone to violent behavior in everything I've read.--Bardbrain

In the section on 'autistic traits,' it says 'The number of autistic traits present determines the severity of autism in the individual. These autistic traits may be beneficial for some disciplines like science, mathematics, engineering, and software.' It goes on to list a some-time preference for visuospatial thinking as just such an autistic trait under the heading of traits of 'Language Impairment.'

1) A preference for visuospatial thinking is hardly a problem in itself, except to a diagnostician or culture of a very narrow perspective.

2) Such a preference would clearly benefit artists, sculptors, designers, and architects, disciplines not altogether included in the quote above.

This seems to be an instance where the diagnostics seems to say as much if not more about the diagnosticians'/editors' problems as anything else.

_______________________________

Hello,

As an individual diagnosed with Autism and a visual-spatial thinker, I found visual-spatial thinking under the term “impairment” as displeasing and offensive. I was proceeding to contribute my point of view to the discussion when I discovered that another person had previously done so. My process of thinking has improved my quality of life and living in ways so numerous I cannot imagine life lacking my visual-spatial manner of thought. To the individual who wrote the comment above, thank you for contributing a point of higher quality.

Willis

P.S. Does anyone else feel as though the terminology of this section is overly negative?

I avoid eye contact with the professionals I see i) because they have a history of abusiveness towards me and ii) they are dégolace.

The whole tenor of the list of traits suggests an empowered autistic diagnostician attempting to exert power over patients who seek to evade it, likely in the service of drugs giant Pfizer seeking to sell pharmaceutical 'cures' for the alleged syndrome.

The "Autistic Traits" section is attributed to "(Klin and Volkmar, 1997)," but there is no clue in this article which source this is. Is "1997" the page number of that book, or more likely, is it the publishing year? This is not in the Wikipedia citation style anyway. Someone please find out to which source this refers and use the Wikipedia citation formatting, if possible. If not, maybe the citation should just be removed altogether. Midtempo-abg 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem by supplying a different citation. Eubulides 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is motivated by today's change which replaced "autism spectrum" with "autistic spectrum" in the lead.

Currently Autistic spectrum is the main article and Autism spectrum redirects to the main article. However, in scholarly literature, Autism spectrum is the preferred terminology; Autistic spectrum used to be more common, but Autism spectrum is now the clear champion. I just now checked Google Scholar, and Autism spectrum has 9,840 hits as opposed to the 8,480 of Autistic spectrum, and the top hits for Autism spectrum are more recent.

So, I propose that the main page be moved to Autism spectrum, with Autistic spectrum left as a redirect to the new main page. Comments? Eubulides 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we lose the line "Some autism are severe or moderate or light" added to the end of this section on 11 April? The poor grammar makes it hard to understand but it doesn't seem to add anything. Maybe there's something in there but as it stands it seems to me no more meaningful than if I went and stuck "Some bears are bigger than others" in the bear article. Scatterkeir (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldnt there be more clearly said that it is a spectrum. I think this is not only linked to disorders.

You can be on autism spectrum without fullfilling PDD-NOS, aspergers or classical autism, or the other disorders criteria falling hereunder

Many people are simply not aware of that it can be anything from very weak traits to severe autism. So please do not exclude those very weak cases. They can still be troublesome and this is good to know anyway what this is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkes (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you do not fulfill the criteria for a diagnosis, you are not on the autism spectrum. Autism is characterized by severe and pervasive impairment in several areas of development, and if you have "very weak traits" you should not get this diagnosis. But I agree with you that the article could mention that there are degrees of impairment, which also probably will be specified in the next version of the dsm. Lova Falk talk 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I renamed this article from Autistic spectrum to Autism spectrum. To see the previous discussion for this article, please see Talk:Autistic spectrum. To see why it was renamed, please see Talk:Autistic spectrum #Rename to "Autism spectrum". Eubulides 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved the above page to Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 1, while I was history merging the article. The older discussions can be found there. Graham87 12:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The german autism article discusses autistic disorder, asperger's syndrome and atypical autism in one article and it mentions the autism spectrum as the concept of a continuum. They do have an additional, yet short, article on 'Early infantile autism'. I think this article can link to de:Autismus. --Fenke 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there's both this ASD page and a PDD (Pervasive developmental disorder) page. Both definitions are mainly the total of Autism, Asperger's, Rett, CDD and PPD-NOS. So, is there a difference between ASD and PDD, and if not, should the pages be merged? --Daraku no Tenshi (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looking again I noticed the slight difference that ASD is also mentioned for people who only have autism-related traits rather than 'complete' autism... still I believe that's a rather little difference. Inter-linking the two pages might be a good option? --Daraku no Tenshi (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PDD and ASD are often used to refer to the same subset of diagnosis. The pages could most likely be merged. The next DSM will most likely define which of the terms will survive so to clear up this confusing issue.

I noticed that autistic people, such as myself, tend to not do well in public schools because of the usually-arbitrary rules that can make an autistic break down. So, in that event, a school for autistic children was developed in Pennsylvania recently. I heard about it on the news one day. Angie Y. (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the inforamtion from a paragraph that does not appear in the source that was cited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.98.54 (talk)

"Autism is intentional, whoever is actually in charge is in the process of destroying the naturalness of the human race. They gave everyone ADD, and some people took it much harder."

This is why wikipedia is regarded as a joke, at best, and a cancer, at worst. Shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.186.115 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is certainly a problem with Wikipedia. That particular vandalism was reverted within half an hour; the article had been stable for over three days before that, so you just happened to hit a small bad window. Next time, please feel free to fix vandalism yourself, if you encounter it; just visit the article history and hit the "undo" button; please see Help:Reverting for more info. Eubulides (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone decipher what this non sequitur sentence from the entry means:

Being on the autism spectrum does not keep these individuals from understanding social roles and stereotypes in a society, many of them can understand the role of a cashier in a super market when locking doors in a bad neighborhood. [italics mine]

I'm still not able discern the meaning of this (guess I'm not autistic; otherwise, I would understand not understanding the role of a cashier in a super market when locking doors in a bad neighborhood). Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of it either. I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It probably should read:

... many of them can understand the role of a cashier in a super market or learn to lock car doors when in a bad neighborhood ...

Fenke (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I went back to the source and it doesn't really talk about the role of a cashier in a supermarket, and it talks about certain neighborhoods rather than bad neighborhoods. I made this change to alter the wording to match the source better. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's saying "Many of them can understand the role of a cashier in a super market, or knowing to lock doors in a bad neighborhood" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.44.104 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe when it said many of them can understand the role of a cashier in a super market when locking doors in a bad neighborhood. it meant when a cashier is closing the super market but it is in a bad neighborhood(it must be pretty bad, they have a cashier closing the supermarket)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.108.238 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this entry should include a section about the controversy regarding certain vaccines causing Autism, since this has been an important area of research. I found many studies using the Ovid database. Ex: Vaccines and autism revisited--the Hannah Poling case. [Historical Article. Journal Article] New England Journal of Medicine. 358(20):2089-91, 2008 May 15. Author: Offit, Paul A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.150.56 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In briefly reviewing Autism spectrum, I see that it is just a subset of what is in Autism. I propose making Autism spectrum a redirect to Autism. Autism #Causes briefly discusses vaccines, with its subpage Causes of autism discussing the two major vaccine theories in Causes of autism #Mercury and Causes of autism #MMR vaccine, so this should address the request about vaccines and autism. Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No further discussion, so I made the redirect. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a big change that looks small and though it appears intuitively correct it does imply that Wikipedia now considers autism as the generic term that autism spectrum used to be, while the autism article is about autistic disorder specifically (which links to it as well). Fenke (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly there is no intent to equate the two terms. Currently Autism defines and discusses both terms extensively. There is some advantage to having one article on the subject, rather than two, just as, for example, there is a single Schizophrenia article that talks about the schizophrenia spectrum, as opposed to having a separate Schizophrenia spectrum article. Conversely, Fetal alcohol syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder are two articles, I guess for good reasons. In this particular case, though, we have Pervasive developmental disorder which means almost exactly the same thing as Autism spectrum (the NIH considers the two terms identical).
• Come to think of it, how about if we redirect Autism spectrum to Pervasive developmental disorder? Any material in the former Autism spectrum can be moved to Pervasive developmental disorder.

Eubulides (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that they are simmilar, but the autism spectrum covers all forms of autism. Could there be an excerpt in PDD linking to the page? Maybe as a compromise general information on autism and aspergers can be in autism spectrum, but to be more in depth one could go to the actual article. There are two possibilities. Technically 3 both options can be combined. I would like to correct and say that autism is a part of the autism spectrum not the other way around. Another reason I reccomended inter linking ASD autism and aspergers.

Pervasive developmental disorders also cover all forms of autism. That is, ASD and PDD are the same topic (according to NIH), or (according to other authors) so close to being the same that there's no need for two different articles. Eubulides (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not inter link the articles? There is useful information in the ASD article that is not in PDD. The ASD article allows people to post general information on such topics. The concept of the autism spectrum is reffered to in much research. I am on the spectrum myself and find other that see it useful. It allows one to talk about issues that encompass both autism and aspergers. One can be on the autism spectrum, but not necessarilly PDD I would like to see ASD remain. Replacing such an article is very controversial for many. Autism manifest in many different ways and such labels do not suffice. When talking about autism or aspergers the autism spectrum not PDD comes up in a discussion. This link even says it is more common. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/autism/complete-publication.shtml What would be a compromise for you?

The articles in question are all interlinked now, no? That is, Autism, Asperger syndrome, and Pervasive development disorder all wikilink to each other. ASD is equivalent to PDD (says the NIH) or is a subset of PDD (according to other sources); I don't know of any reliable sources that say that one can have ASD and not PDD. Certainly I see little reason to have one article on PDD and a different one on ASD. Whether that article is called "ASD" or "PDD" doesn't matter that much. Eubulides (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The link I posted says that ASD is a much more common term so I think it should not be deleted. It is valuable information even if it is simmilar. I would like to keep autism spectrum since it reminds people that not all aspergers or autism cases are the same htey are a spectrum meaning there will be many variations (which geneticists have already realized). Retts and CDD are not considered part of the autism spectrum. If this does not go anywhere can we discuss this further or have a third view?

Fair enough. How about if we rename Pervasive development disorder to Autism spectrum disorder, and create a redirect from the former to the latter? If you like this idea, we should propose it on Talk:Pervasive development disorder first, and wait a few days for replies. Eubulides (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as long as we can do a merger, but overall agree with what you have said. If you agree with what i have just said I will post it in the PDD talk pageMatsuiny2004 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming is simple; "merger" is more complicated. If you want to propose a merger too, then we need more details about what is being proposed. Simply saying "merger" is too vague, I'm afraid. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree on ommiting the diagnostic criteria part sicne that is probably under PDD, but I would like to keep the traits section and the paragraph talking about terminology.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the PDD's Rett syndrome and Childhood disintegrative disorder are not generally seen as ASD's, linking PDD to ASD would not be entirely correct.

The term autism spectrum is often used, but rarely explained, and it would not hurt if Wikipedia were to devote an article to it, or at least link it to a proper section in another article, that does explain it and the relation and differences between the PDD's, without going into specific details. In the end what matters is that the term is explained as well as we can. Fenke (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, can we change the section-layout? Fenke (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you point that rett's and CDD are not seens as ASD's which I think should be explained and may be a good point for keeping it seperate. Do you have sources you can show to ebulides for this?. If not I will continue with my discussion of a merger.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't clear enough about it, but I was referring to this talk page actually. Fenke (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

fixed Matsuiny2004 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Van der Gaag explicitly mentions it explicitly in Autism spectrum disorder: causality - but I can't find, or there is no, english translation. In "Non-Autistic Pervasive Developmental Disorders: Rett’s syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified" (Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 2006/28 Supl. I, 12-21) it reads:

"Today, the prototypes of PDD, autism disorder (AD) and Asperger Syndrome, are well known and two nonautism categories, Rett syndrome and disintegrative disorder, are well characterized either."

Fenke (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

that sounds like a reasonable argument. I hope he reads that. There many sources that do not agree though.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here more articles to back fenkes statements up

http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/193/over2.html

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/asd.cfm

http://www.mchlibrary.info/KnowledgePaths/kp_autism.html

This article may explain why the ASD page is important. The info I am talking about is near the bottom paragraph. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSS-41WJ6GR-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed0003b431734d4084febafef67ae3a3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So what should we add to explain the differences? We already have I think 5 articles to do so. What do we see that need to be revised or edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the next section that begins "In view of the above discussion". Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought this back since I feel it was not discussed enough and see it as a valuable resource. Since it is a short article I am thinking there could be excerpts from certain articles like autism and aspergers so people can get a basic idea. Maybe integrate PDD?71.232.93.212 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This original change was not discussed and decided.

Please see the previous section, where I suggest redirecting to Pervasive developmental disorder instead. Eubulides (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, User:Eubulides and User talk:71.232.93.212. I heard of this dissent when User:71.232.93.212 brought up the question on Talk:Neurodevelopmental disorder. My review of the question shows that there are valid arguments on both sides. It seems to me that the goal here should be to make a good article that covers the subject more fully so perhaps the effort should be directed toward gathering more references and rewriting it rather than the present course of action. I'd wonder if it might be more productive to re-open the article and give User:71.232.93.212 and other interested parties sufficient time to put up the needed information.Trilobitealive (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

yes I would work with others on that if it was reopened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion, I resurrected Autism spectrum and did some nontrivial surgery on it to replace obsolescent sources, to fix WP:WEIGHT problems, and to make it conform better to the guidelines. To do all this I took the suggestion of using "excerpts from certain articles" and ran with it. I view the result as being just a first cut, and of course further comments and contributions are welcome. Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS for the relevant guidelines for articles like this. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Colin°^Talk 10:50, 25 August 2008

(UTC)

I agree, impressive. I go to bed and when I wake up the next morning the article has been brought back to life.

A. Klin makes a remark on a possible reason for the use of spectrum in "Autism and Asperger syndrome: an overview" Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2006;28(Supl I):S3-11

"Awareness of the heterogeneity of behavioral manifestations, of variable degrees of affectedness, and of likely multiple etiologic factors gave rise to the term Autism Spectrum Disorders, which, like the term PDD, refers to several discrete conditions (autism, Asperger syndrome, and PDD-NOS), but which, unlike the term PDD, refers to a postulated dimensional nature linking various conditions rather than clear-cut boundaries around diagnostic labels."

It might be of use. Fenke (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that quote! It is a very helpful cite about the confusing terminology used here. I added some text along those lines. Eubulides (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes and your ressurection of the article, but there was one article about facial recognition in ASD children which I was wondering if I could still put up. It explains that people on the autism spectrum can still learn to recognize such facial expressionsMatsuiny2004 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I made this edit, removing the facial-recognition citation, because it overly emphasized the results of one primary study in facial recognition, instead of placing the summary in context, and this introduced unwanted POV. There have been several studies in facial recognition, not all of which agree. Second, there have been many studies of perception other than facial recognition, also with conflicting results; it's a much broader field than just faces. WP:MEDRS suggests that instead of citing just one primary study, we look for reviews in this area. Here are a few:

• Rajendran & Mitchell 2007 (doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.02.001). This reviews the facial-recognition paper, along with several other papers.
• Behrmann et al. 2006 (PMID 16713326)
• Sasson 2006 (PMID 16572261)
• Jemel et al. 2006 (PMID 16477517)
• Mottron et al. 2006 (PMID 16453071)

I'm sure there are other sources, but the point is that as per WP:MEDRS #Some definitions and basics we should be using reviews in this controversial area, rather than citing primary sources ourselves. (The above reviews have sharp disagreements! So it won't be that easy to avoid POV.) Eubulides (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I put a question in a rem statement in Autism spectrum#Management asking whether the section should be deleted. I like the direction that you all are taking the article and it would seem that eliminating this section or moving it to another article would be appropriate at this point.Trilobitealive (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MEDMOS #Diseases/disorders/syndromes is the inspiration for Autism spectrum #Management. The old version of this article had the following text on management:

"Many autism therapies have arisen to treat the core symptoms of autism. Simpson (2005) identified four scientifically-based treatments for learners with Autism Spectrum Disorders, including Applied Behavior Analysis, Discrete Trial Training, Pivotal Response Therapy, and Strain & Hoyson's "Learning Experiences: An Alternative Program for Preschoolers and Parents." (citing Simpson 2005, doi:10.1177/10883576050200030201)

so it appeared that there was some desire to briefly summarize management and therapies here. Simpson 2005 is a narrower and more-dated source than Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921), so I substituted the current text, which cites Myers et al. and is taken from the lead of Autism therapies. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This recent edit by 69.113.62.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as well as this recent edit by 71.183.254.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), both attempted to add an external link[1] to the Association for Science in Autism Treatment, a not-very-active autism organization. This article doesn't really have the space for external links to Autism Speaks, Generation Rescue, and dozens of other autism-related organizations, nor does it have the space for a link to the ASAT. The ASAT link (like links to Autism Speaks, etc.) doesn't satisfy the criteria of WP:ELYES and so I removed it. Eubulides (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The article Dion Betts is being discussed for possible deletion.

I was unable to find sources indicating his notability (or that of his books), but I am by no means an expert in this area! If he is indeed notable, if his books are thought of as being significant in the field of Autism spectrum, I would be grateful if people could take part in the discussion.

I am not seeking to get this article deleted if he/his books are actually notable and significant in the field. However, if they are not significant, then the article is right to be deleted.

If you want to make your thoughts known, the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dion Betts

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit introduced this text:

The AUTISM MOVEMENT IN INDIA: The autism movement in India has seen the intensive passion with which individuals have come forward to start centres across India to help not only children with autism but also parents/caregivers/professionals with the most effective strategies that could make a difference to those effected by autism/ASD/Asperger's syndrome. Most recent among the organisations is the INDIAN AUTISTIC SOCIETY'S CARE4AUTISM CENTRE(www.care4autism.info)and its associate centre MAYA (MANAGING AUTISM for YOUNG ADULTS)in VADODRA, GUJARATstarted in Hyderabad, India offering yeomen services to the educational needs of children both young and adults alike. Apart from its various activities for children with Autism, it is also involved in conducting Work-shops and seminars for parents and caregivers/professionals across India which will help in spreading the awareness among public and teaching community alike.

This material as-is isn't suitable for Wikipedia, as it is promotional and doesn't have a neutral point of view. I suggest adding a brief, neutrally-worded report to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. For now, I reverted the addition and copied it to here. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the other autism-related pages, such as Heritability of autism, have recently switched to the {{vcite journal}} family of citation templates, which make the pages smaller and faster to load. Let's use these templates here too; that will make it easier to share citations among the pages, and also make this page a bit faster and smaller. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ARTICLE HOUSEKEEPING: DSM-IV REFERENCE In it's introduction, I note this article states: "According to the DSM-IV, the three main forms of ASD are" -- from which point forward, the author then correctly provides the DSM-IV's taxamonic differentiations.

I'm being picayunish here, but, technically, the DSM-IV neither specifically acknowledges nor references the commonly employed term Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Hence, the statement "According to the DSM-IV" could be mistakenly interpreted to suggest that it does.

NON-EXISTENT DISORDER? In fact, the terms "Austism Spectrum" and "Autism Spectrum Disorder" -- while in contermporary usage -- do not actually describe an existing phenotype, but instead have become umbrella terms (and far more euphonious and marketable ones) for actual, existing disorders. And, while it is true that the CDC mentions ASD on its website, it is nonetheless listed as an alternative description of disorders which are already subsumed under rubric of Pervasive Developmental Disorder. At the very least, the appearance of a neologistic convention, such as ASD, might prove to be a fruitful avenue of inquiry.

FAKE CRISIS? Another point worth pursuing is this: The purported statistical dispersion of this "new" disorder (1 out of 110 or 1 out of 160, depending on sourcing) is arguably pandemic. Clearly, this is the “WMD” of mental health, if we are to believe the numerous PSAs. Where is the Jerry Lewis telethon for this horrible crisis? More to the point, where do these statistics come from?

CUI BONO? Well, several brave souls (myself included), who do not completely accept what essentially amounts to an ontological argument for the existence of ASD, argue that what is really going on here is not an epidemiological phenomenon, but instead, a marketing ploy; after all, the existence of a new and properly fear-mongered disorder like ASD spectrum is potentially worth billions - especially to the pharmaceutical/Mental Health conglomerate. And, one has to admit, Autism Spectrum Disorder is more likely to simply roll off the tongue at congressional lobbying parties than Pervasive Delevopmental Disorder. (Which, by the way, cannot be said while intoxicated.)

BOOGIEMAN TACTICS Case in point: Unless you've been in seclusion, you have heard, as have I, the many PSAs about ASD (Ok, I'm abusing my acronymic privileges). The one which comes to mind is the frequently aired radio add (done by actress Mariska Hargitay of NBS's Law And Order), warning us that if our infants don't babble on schedule or meet certain other maturational milestones, they probably have ASD. After all, Mariska tells us: "One out of 150 children have Autism." These and other similar statements would appear to be designed to evoke a collective, sympathetic nervous system response on the part of the public. (Boogieman, table for 300 million?)

STATISTICAL LEGERDEMAIN So, where did these statistics come from? One hypothesis states that the increase in diagnosed cases of Autism is "an artifact of increased surveillance and broadening of the definition of autism." The Increase in Autism Diagnoses: Two Hypotheses

Interestingly, other pediatric epidemiological studies of Pervasive Developmental Disorders or ASD-type disorders, arrive at a similar conclusion; far from being statistically anomalous, the occurrence of this typology has uniformly remained at about 60-70/10,000 children. Epidemiology of Pervasive Developmental Disorders - A compendium of 43 studies.

I'm just sayin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyteam (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about ASD not being in the DSM. That error was recently introduced, and I just now fixed it. The rest of the comment doesn't seem to be suggesting any specific change. Eubulides (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The section Autism_spectrum#Neuropsychological_Findings is so speculative, I don't think it belongs in this overview. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this edit summary "There are many neuropsychological correlates with ASDs and it is important to include this section to understand cognitive deficits in ASDs. Updates to this section are ongoing," from Alexpsihogios (talk · contribs), who has done, on first reading, an excellent rewrite of the article.

I appreciate the importance of neuropsychological factors in the autism spectrum, but would prefer to see a discussion of the actual neuropsychological functions affected in the condition, like executive function, rather than very tenuous speculations around possible connections between anomalous psychological function and anomalous brain structure and function. But, please carry on, and take your time. I hadn't noticed how recent all this was. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy schmoly! I agree with the previous comment, in that this is an EXCELLENT rewrite of this article. The page is now updated, accurate, cogent, and organized. I viewed the page before these edits, and it has, in my opinion, been absolutely transformed from its previous "C-class" state. It provides a detailed overview of various aspects of autism spectrum, exactly what we need the Wikipedia page to be! I also believe that the recent edits made in the Neuropsychological Findings section are necessary, even though they've been accused of being "very tenuous speculations." Neuropsychological aspects of various disorders are coming to the forefront of medical and psychological research. In order for these Wikipedia pages to be up-to-date with the current research, these "speculations" should follow the times, though perhaps noting that these physiological and neurological correlates of ASD are still uncertain and currently being studied may be beneficial. I also agree that discussing the actual neuropsychological functions affected in the disorder would be great to tie this neuropsychological section together. And hyperlinking some of the brain/neuro terms might be helpful for laypeople who aren't familiar with the field. Other than these minor and probably even optional suggestions, I can't think of anything else to change. The page is stellar, and the edits made to this page are very impressive! C_Lee 05:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clee8288 (talk • contribs)

Note that there is a separate article on Autism. Perhaps these articles should be merged or their content should be better coordinated, to avoid repetition. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They are about different things. Autism is about the psychiatric syndrome, "autistic disorder." This article is about that syndrome and others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Autism spectrum/GA1

What are the limits of the spectrum? Some people are better at communication than others, some are better at recognising facial expressions than others... Are we all on the spectrum? Can our autism be measured if we are normally functioning people? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there should be a reference to meltdowns. Although there aren't referenced in the DSM they are accepted by Professionals as a real thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.103.156 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just read the comments regarding GA. I am aware of an online CiteULike Autism research paper sharing library which currently has over 500 research papers. Most papers have related tags relating to the papers specific content. I have my own online PubMed research paper collections which may also be a useful source of secondary (review) research papers Autism collection and Autism and Regression collection dolfrog (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph ends with the phrase "and preoccupations with parts of objections." Unsure whether this is vandalism, or perhaps a carelessly entered attempt at saying "...parts of objects". Regardless, its meaning is not clear. Can someone with subject matter expertise please rewrite this sentence? Publius3 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed and changed. Yobol (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the picture that mentions the philtrum a joke? There are lines all over the face. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be noticing. Biosthmors (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be that those lines are means of measurement for specific facial features; of course, that is pure speculation on my part, I think we should probably remove it as I don't see what it is adding to the article. Yobol (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Added picture here for discussion now that I removed it from page. Yobol (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)