Talk:Autism

I’m autistic.

A baby stacking cans is not a good picture. It has little to do with autism and suggests no internal complexity on the part of autistic people. It makes it look… basic. Boring. Like the kind of thing that only leads to annoying and pointless habits. Meaningless.

What would be better? In my opinion, an artistic representation of some sort of creative activity or of something that’s really relevant to autism would be much better. The sheer depth and complexity and difficulty and beauty of being autistic is not portrayed by the cans baby.

Note: I don’t want to try to send any specific message about autism through the image. It should portray autism in a neutral way. I just want something that is a little more dignified than the baby. Thoughts? Language Boi (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It’s also the case that there have been very few times in my life when I have had absolutely no friends. This is true of most autistic people. The image might be able to hint at the fact that social interactions are not always difficult for autistic people. Language Boi (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Same, @Language Boi! 206.57.152.111 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Autism is a very large diagnosis - every autistic person has a different experience with it and no two autistic people have the exact same characteristics/symptoms of the disorder. It is true that repetitive lining up and stacking of objects is a behavior associated with autism, even if you're autistic and you didn't do that as a child. Also, very few pictures actual suggest internal complexity - that is the job of the article. I would actually argue that some kind of diagram trying to show complexity in autistic people would be counterproductive, and having the photo of a human being is a lot more fitting. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not suggesting a diagram-that would be a bad idea. I just think that if we find a better image we should use it. The cans baby doesn't show the whole picture. I did lots of goofy things as a kid-but autism gives me serious feelings and ideas. It's more than just something that causes weird habits.

Note: I'm using "goofy" and "weird" here as shorthand for "things that don't have a direct purpose and arguably lack deep meaning". There's nothing wrong with such behaviors (I have several myself), but the picture should show autism from a more big-picture perspective. Language Boi (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The child is a toddler, the cans are stacked very precisely, the photo is showing a child with unusual skill levels for his or her age. It seems to me to be a relatively positive image of autism. Urselius (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree - but I can see @Language Boi's point. Perhaps a similar but more impressive behavior, something that shows both intelligence and autistic behavioral patterns, would be better.

However - and this is something that can be difficult to cope with - we have to remember that not all autistic people are as fortunate as we are. Autism is a condition that can cause severe developmental disability. There are people who, due to autism, lack either that internal complexity or the ability to utilize and express it.

With the scope and variability of Autism, I don't think there will ever actually be a particularly good well-representative lead picture. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What about an image from some sort of autistic-related movement or protest? I think that some pages related to the LGBTQ community have that. Lots of those pages also have a symbol of some sort. Maybe we could use that rainbow infinity sign thing? It just seems really weird to have autism represented by a young child doing something nonproductive or antisocial. I’m not completely opposed to it but we can do better. Language Boi (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with using an image that doesn't have a singular person in it. What about this image? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Autistic_Pride_Flag.png. It's used on other articles about Autism and its community Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Autism is a medical diagnosis. Images about social movements do not represent medical topics. Autism rights movement (a social movement) already have that. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I remember correctly, that image I suggested has been added to one of the Autism articles one time before the merging. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"There are people who, due to autism, lack either that internal complexity or the ability to utilize and express it."

That's not actually true. If any autistic person lacks either internal complexity or the inability to use it, that is due to a co-occurring intellectual disability, not their autism. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

you sure? I'm pretty sure autism can be higher support needs like an intellectual disability Anthony2106 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read again: "...co-occurring intellectual disability..." Basically, I never said that intellectual disability never occurs alongside autism, as you seem to be implying I claimed, I only stated that two characteristics of intellectual disability specifically are not characteristics of autism generally. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@80.193.98.150 yeah but autistic people can "lack either that internal complexity or the ability to utilize and express it." even if they don't have a interlectal disability Anthony2106 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a person can lack the ability to communicate certain things due to autism, but that is not at all the same thing as lacking internal complexity or the ability to use it, which is what I originally asserted. You need to stop moving the goalposts because arguing that way indicates disingenuousness. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the thing: most of the people commenting and who likely wrote this page and "protected" it from correction by calling it "protection for vandalism..." You denounce, people who are called high support needs, which isn't even a term used, by many people who are autistic. We do not like it. It let's you call me high supports need, while thinking no support needs. And, excuses your ignorance of the higher amount of needs that I do have. Nevermind that I can't afford to even get a diagnosis because it's such a racket. No doctor will diagnose it in adult and the few that do charge you thousands of dollars. And, insurance does not pay for it. Most who need the diagnosis don't have the financial freedom or capabilities to afford that. I'm sure, as you read this, you're reminding yourself "But, you're high support needs..." ignoring you are insinuating to yourself this means no support needs. Those who have needed support all their life, but have not gotten it. They have struggled along, are still struggling along, and can't afford it. I was diagnosed with savant syndrome as a child because my parent fought to keep the doctor from diagnosing me with autism. At the time, autism was still consider childhood schizophrenia. So, for that I am glad she did it. But, it does not help now. Getting a diagnosis now will be almost impossible, and convincing people that I struggle as much as I do is less so. It doesn't matter that even people who knew me that remember the entire family teasing me because they considered me speaking, walking, and hitting other early childhood developmental milestones late. I REMEMBER them calling me retarded, slow, and saying I was going to need lots of help or be put in a care facility; saying I was very "retarded" and not all there. Not knowing that I had a very rich inner dialogue, one that I used to help me teach myself to talk, and then I just one day started talking. Because I went from completely nonverbal to speaking like a little adult just before turning 3 yrs old; I was actually first classified as being a prodigy in the neuropsych evaluation before the start of school. It wasn't just the speaking, it was what else I was able to comprehend and had already learned, or taught myself by the time I had begun speaking. And, because I spoke so well, people tended to forget the earlier issues. When clear social issues and other issues that most people associate with autism (then and now) became apparent I would be reevaluated, and I would be reclassified as a savant. My parent would use that diagnosis to stave off and help people forget how they conditioned me to not present autistic in other ways long before any of that! While it was conditioning, I will not let people continue to be blind to the fact that most of that conditioning is a result of sheer trauma from abuse. You get to disavow yourself of damage done by telling yourself that if a person masks, that if they're able to not be autistic, or able to stop being autistic, then they must not be or must not be too much; NONE OF THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING THOUGH. You have the children who were truly just conditioned through things like ABA; and if you have tried to convince yourself that ABA is anything other than that, then you are the worst kind of abuser. But, there are the children who were truly abused, terrorize, and traumatized into masking. Not that most will care anyway, as that would mess up their narrative. For many, it is to acknowledge that they have done something possibly horrific to someone they care about; and many people will not allow themselves to acknowledge that. For others, it is to acknowledge something that they see as a severe flaw that they can draw correlations or similarities to themselves. Once again, most humans will not allow themselves to do that! Trauma! That is how an overwhelming majority of us were "conditioned" into what I've had people call not "appearing to be autistic..." All because they are too ignorant to know, and too lazy to do actual research and find out what autism is, that you can have something comorbid with autism, and that can differentiate how a person presents (as with any condition). 96.234.220.222 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see the issue with the autism baby? it shows an autistic person engaging in an activity that's typical for autism, in a natural and neutral way. boring isn't necessarily bad either—especially for an encyclopedia. it neither dramatizes nor glamorizes the subject.

you're never gonna show "the whole picture" of autism in a single pic because autism is too heterogeneous. and you're never gonna show the internal experience of autism in a single pic because by their very nature, pictures only capture what's outwardly observable (you can't capture what a person feels when sorting objects, but you can show that sorting objects is a common activity in autistics). a single picture is inherently reductive, there's no way around it. but an autistic person doing a typically autistic thing is still appropriately illustrative, in my opinion. as a comparison, the page for Intellectual disability shows children participating in the special olympics, Developmental coordination disorder shows a picture of shoes to illustrate the fact that tying laces is difficult for people with DCD, Obsessive–compulsive disorder illustrates hand-washing, Schizophrenia a piece of art by a person with schizophrenia, and Dysgraphia shows handwriting by an adult with dysgraphia. None of these pictures show the full depth and complexity of the subject matter, or the internal complexity of the people with the disability—and they don't have to.

if you have a better picture, by all means bring it forward (especially if there can be improvement of the demographic diversity of the images on this page—e.g. most pics now are of kids, so an adult would be nice), but I don't think the autism baby is so bad that we should urgently look for replacement or flat-out remove it. TheZoodles (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I propose Greta Thunberg as the photo. She is a notable person with autism, and many other wikipedia articles don't use a photo to represent the entire subject, but to give a notable example. Here are some: Arch, Murder, Lesbian, Car. What these articles have in common is that their subject has a wide diversity in appearance - no one picture is going to represent all arches, all murders, all lesbians, or all cars. The same is true for autistic people, so perhaps a notable example of an autistic person is the best choice. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind what the picture is changed to but I feel like a picture of Elon Musk when he was a guest appearance on SNL, him saying he was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. I suggest Elon as a picture because he is a very well known person, and how smart he is. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

He’s also, arguably, an ass. This doesn’t mean that we should silence him, but Greta Thunberg is much less controversial when it comes to spreading misinformation. I would suggest someone like Einstein but he was never diagnosed with autism or anything. Language Boi (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greta Thunberg is also controversial - I do think that certain things that make both of these people controversial are actually autistic traits. People don't tend to be receptive to different communication styles - so when someone in the public eye has these autistic traits, they're disliked. I would support Elon Musk being the preview image for this article. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't really think content about Elon being autistic should be written in this article. We can put that in Asperger's syndrome article. I don't think he ever mentioned that he himself is autistic (he only mentioned Asperger's) so I think it'd be WP:SYNTH to deduce him this way (fwiw, he did mention his son being autistic though). Also, it doesn't matter if he's an ass or not - we don't add/remove content based on our personal opinions, see WP:NPOV. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Asperger's is a form of autism, actually, so Elon does indeed count as officially autistic (not so sure about his being actually autistic, though, given his complete lack of emotional empathy). 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that if your idea here is to avoid offensive comparisons or stereotypes -- if we're assuming that someone will look at the lead image and have that be the only piece of information they retain about people with autism -- I would aver that "a kid having fun minding their own business" is infinitely better than "annoying celebrity who mouths off on Twitter about politics 24/7". I mean, imagine this conversation:

• "ah, I heard about that, that's the syndrome that makes you be a kid who stacks up cans of vegetables?"
• "ah, I heard about that, that's the syndrome that makes you be Elon Musk?"
• "ah, I heard about that, that's the syndrome that makes you be Greta Thunberg?"

jp×g🗯️ 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean, if it absolutely needs to be a hot relevant celeb pic, at least have it be John Elder Robison or Temple Grandin or something, for Christ's sake -- we don't have a picture of Donald Trump at bone spurs or Rachel Maddow at depression etc. jp×g🗯️ 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

People are going to be idiots and make irrational comparisons, this is not something we can change, therefore not something we need to concern ourselves over.

Furthermore, I didn't choose Greta because I like her, or I think she represents autism well; but because she is a notable and influential and has autism.

Also, the two examples you gave are much easier to represent with an image than autism, which is why this discussion began in the first place. Nobody is going to say that an X-ray of bone spurs is misrepresenting the condition. ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I strongly oppose using Greta Thunberg (or any specific notable individual) as the image. I think similar reasoning to MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY should apply here. It takes a judgement call to choose a specific person to represent a large group. (I think the "Lesbian" article is a different case as it's an artwork that clearly depicts the topic.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's a similar image on the Simple English version.

The URL: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have learned of this and am strongly opposed to changing the image. Nothing was wrong with the initial one. Me and all of my autismal buddies loved the kid stacking the cans, which was not only a neat pic but one that clearly demonstrated the traits of being an autist. I never heard anybody say a bad word about it. The kid was beloved. Now it is some random photo of a celebrity -- awful. jp×g🗯️ 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think Thunberg is only controversial in right wing political/petroleum industry circles, and who cares about them? The problem with trying to illustrate autistic traits is that no single trait will be universal. I am a diagnosed autist and I never stacked objects or arranged them in lines as a child. Having a the image of a celebrity in the infobox is an ideal way to prominently indicate that autism is not only a childhood condition, but is lifelong. Urselius (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this comment isn't a troll, it is wildly inappropriate -- are you really making the explicit argument that we should choose a politically contentious illustration for the pupose of annoying/demoralizing/etc people we disagree with? jp×g🗯️ 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am saying that political and industry viewpoints should have zero influence on an image in an encyclopaedic treatment of autism. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have posted a link to this discussion on reddit along with a snippet from the discussion.I am posting this notice to avoid accusations of unintentional stealth canvassing or meat-puppetry. This is a simple disclosure, you may respond or disregard at your leisure. (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, @Language Boi. I agree with you and have agreed for years. I believe a 22-year-old home photograph of a toddler stacking cans is an infantilizing and outdated view of an entire human condition.

While I believe it can stay in the article (no pun intended), it should not be the primary/representative image.

For example, note how the woman and man primary images are those of adults, not children.

An autistic adult engaging in autistic behavior would be far more representative of autism as a whole. Either that, or a strictly medical representation.

Here are my proposals for the primary/representative image:

 

"An autistic author, 2020."' This shows an autistic adult who is not a celebrity (Siena Castellon) achieving something related to autism (publishing The Spectrum Girl's Survival Guide). It is a high-quality modern photograph, not of a child or toddler, and not in a home, childcare, or medical setting.

 

"A nonverbal autistic child (left) and a caretaker (right), 2020." This is closer to our time period and shows an older, happy child. It is a more high-quality photograph, though still suffers some infantilization and medical association.

 

"An autistic public speaker in Oxford, 2012." Another autistic adult, who is not a celebrity (Paul Isaacs), engaging in behavior directly related to autism (speaking about autism at a sensory issues event). A high-quality, closer-to-modern photograph. Not a childcare or medical setting. Would be best cropped, however.

 

"The first winner of Mr. Autism Kenya, 2023." A slightly more historically significant event. Shows an autistic adult, who is not a celebrity, engaging in behavior directly related to autism (winning an award relating to being autistic).

 

"An image of an autistic mind versus a typical mind." Lastly, we can evade an photograph at all. I think the medical image would be the most accurate image as a header for such an expansive topic.

Evedawn99 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

1, 3, and 4 are bad illustrative examples. For the brain image there would need to be secondary coverage of the study supporting it's validity. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm autistic and the picture is about the last thing to take issue with! If you could read that entire article and walk away with only issues about the picture they used; there's your trouble... 96.234.220.222 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I genuinely think you might be one of the only people who genuinely has an issue with this image.. I came here to look because I've seen autistic people, like myself, grieving the image online. Why don't we reinstate it until you find a "better" image? I'm not sure you're even gonna find anything as complex as you seem to deem fit for the page.. RubraDolorosa (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate", but none of the images mentioned or used thus far look like autism. Perhaps we should consider just not having an image, because there is really nothing that looks like autism. (Take any of those images, show them separately - not in the article - to a sample of people and ask them what the image looks like. How many people would say "that's a picture of autism"?) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like any MOS guideline it is not applicable to every case and people who do not recognise this shortcoming have missed an important fact. Try finding an image that looks like disestablishmentarianism, for example. Having disposed of the MOS as not applicable and irrelevant, we are given a choice of having an image that has relevance to autism, or no image at all. Personally, I would prefer a related image to no image. Urselius (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is essentially impossible to highlight the diversity and complexity of the autism spectrum with one image. The picture of the toddler seemed okay to me. It shows a child on the autism spectrum engaging in a repetitive behavior, in this case stacking cans. It may not be very exciting, but it's an accurate depiction of a common symptom/trait of people on the autism spectrum. Besides, showing an image of a person with autism who also has extraordinary skills seems like it would perpetrate stereotypes, as the vast majority of people with autism do not have such abilities. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

you like person first language better? Anthony2106 (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you try to communicate your idea/opinion more clearly? FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most autistic people like Identity-first language but if you like person-first lauguage I wont bother you about it. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As my name suggests, I am on the autism spectrum. I prefer to be refered to as a person with autism rather then an autistic person, which I suppose would mean I prefer person first language, due to "autistic person" implying that autism is the defining trait of that person, and common usage of the word "autistic" as an insult or synonymous with intellectual disability. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This editor (me) is an example of an autistic person who prefers identity-first language. :) Evedawn99 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, I suppose I can see why identity first language could be preferred. "Person with autism" could potentially imply autism is a disease. It is not. Autism is a part of my identity, and even if it causes significant difficulty and mental pain in my daily life, it is not something I would change about myself. And I, along with what appears to be the majority of people with Asperger's syndrome/High functioning autism, do not want to be cured. So, if "autistic person" implies it to be a part of one's identity, rather than a disease one suffers from, then I can certainly see why one would prefer to be referred to with identity first language. I still prefer person first language, as autism is, after all, not my ONLY characteristic. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my opinon telling people your autistic dosen't mean its your only characteristic. Say what you want Anthony2106 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to reinforce this point: I only ever see this argument made with respect to disabilities, I think. If I say 'I'm a British person' nobody says 'don't let your Britishness define you'; if I tell people I'm bisexual, nobody seems to assume that's my chief (let alone sole) defining characteristic.

A strong majority of English-speaking autistic people prefer identity-first language, according to a large number of polls. Common reasons include the impossibility of separating a person from their autism, and the fact that when someone says 'a person with X', X is most often (not always) a disease or something on those lines. Oolong (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Oolong good point I think this has something to do with the social model of disability. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Considering the discussion already taken place. I propose a purality poll on the topic, 2-3 weeks length on which image to use. Until then the popular long time used can stacking image stays in place. I don't forsee a enormously clear concensus taking place with the number of options increasing seemingly. I think this is fair considering this is a very subjective matter, so whatever is the most popular view on it will be expressed on the page. Everyone can state which image option they are for, state a brief argument or point to a longer one expressed elsewhere on the talk page --LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:RFC Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The lengthy discussion about changing the infobox image turning into a big disagreement has sparked me to say that the image just should be of something not someone; discussions about having the image of something has less disagreements than an image of someone. But there, of course, needs to be a consensus on this. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your idea. For "something" rather than someone I would propose File:Powell2004Fig1A.png which illustrates the mind differences. I have also included it in my gallery above. Evedawn99 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would oppose a brain scan image, because they tend to be wildly misleading. I don't believe that this one represents anything approaching a set of generally established differences between autistic and other brains, for example. Oolong (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as one of the primary concerns here is that the pic of the kid with the cans is offensive or infantilizing, such that the choice of image here is strictly a policy issue, and more of an optics issue. I think this is completely false. I will offer here a few facts:

• I have autism and so do a lot of my friends.
• Inasmuch as I've heard people comment on this infobox image in a non-Wikipedia context (which isn't a very common subject of conversation to begin with), it has been of unequivocal support and positive regard for both the kid with the cans, as well as his use as an illustration. I have never heard somebody say that
• This specific infobox illustration is regularly commented on by the public, which is again somewhat rare for an infobox image -- and is quite well-received, viz. this tweet ("every few years i check wikipedia to see if the autism baby stacking cans is still the main image representing Our Beautiful Nation") with ten thousand retweets and eighty thousand likes. Beneath it is a litany of comments like:
  • "There's something so poetic about this pic actually being relatable to a lot of the Autistic community where other places try and fail".
  • "I love the stacking cans pic bc I used to stack cans as a toddler and then at 16 I was like “hm I wonder if I have autism, maybe I should read up on Wikipedia” and then I got hit with that image immediately. Great start on my journey."
  • "I feel like I've succeeded as an Autistic adult because my job is basically stacking cans"
  • "I feel so seen and represented"

Given that we don't really have a way of setting up a Gallup poll, I think this is about as close as we're going to get to a public consensus on the image -- and from this it seems notable to me that I cannot find anybody saying they feel marginalized or offended by the picture, versus a great number who say it represents them in a positive way. Moreover, it's been here for a solid several years, and while there are occasionally arguments about its inclusion (e.g. Talk:Autism/Archive_5#Header_Photo from Feb 2023 which also features Urselius), they rarely reach any sort of consensus that the image is bad, even with the same people in the discussion each time.

Compare this to the photo of the celebrity, which has on this talk page alone caused several people to object in the last couple days -- of course, a couple people here and there aren't the end of the world, but I think it warrants asking how the "less offensive" image is getting complaints at, what, a hundred, thousand times the rate as the "more offensive" one? jp×g🗯️ 00:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The image has certainly become a meme, and I, too, have been following the repercussions of its removal on X, Reddit, and other platforms. However, this is an encyclopedia, and its main (only?) goal is to be informative. Some of the tweets you quoted actually illustrate how out of place that image is. The main tweet didn't go viral because it showed how appropriate the image was. The mere fact that the child became known as "autism baby" and that stacking cans became immediately associated with autism should be enough to show that the child's "folk hero" status stems from how out of place the image was.

Stacking objects (cans included) is important developmental milestone as well as a broadly recommended activity. Images are important, and as one of the replies you quoted shows, if you come to read about autism and see a baby stacking cans as the most prominent image, and if you (or your child) are among the large majority of people who enjoyed stacking things at some point—most of whom are perfectly neurotypical—it's very possible that the image could be misleading. In that regard, the other image of a child sleeping next to different objects lined up would be much more representative of ASD, because that particular trait isn't a developmental milestone (although I don't support using that image either).

Is Greta the ideal choice? I don't think so, but it is more informative than the previous image. Ideally, we should come up with a meaningful visual representation of autism that visually identifies the article while being informative. I like the previously proposed idea of having something like a 7-sided polygon with each side filled with different intensities as an illustration of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.

Rkieferbaum (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, there is clearly no consensus to change the image, which has lasted on Wikipedia for a very long time. The replacement was immediately criticised by two IP editors.

The reasons to remove it are not policy or guideline based but instead complaining about it being 'basic' and 'boring', which are hardly issues with an image in an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

My reason to remove it as specified in #Why is there a picture of a person with autism at the top of the page at all? (not sure if that topic would have been better added here) was "guideline based", i.e. MOS:LEADIMAGE. Ybllaw (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The image was a representation of the topic; it was a boy with autism engaging in a stereotypy. The guideline supports inclusion of said image. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Autism, as a non material concept - a specialised concept as it is a neurodevelopmental condition - cannot be illustrated in a literal way. There are no images of autism. Therefore, it is either no image in the lead or an image at some remove from the subject of the article. Any image showing a behaviour, even a stereotype, will be unrepresentative of a considerable proportion of autistic people. However, an image of one well-known autistic person can, with some level of legitimacy, stand for all. Urselius (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An image does not have to be representative of every single person, see Woman. As for the 'non material concept', see Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is a WP:GOODARTICLE or look at Beauty, Greed, Philosophy (featured article), and Altruism. Just to name a few. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a difference between a general image and an image illustrating a stereotypical behaviour. Using one particular behaviour to illustrate a neurodevelopmental condition may give it undue prominence. In an extreme case it might inhibit a potentially autistic person who does not show that behaviour from seeking a diagnosis. We need to be careful. Urselius (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is a general image.

>In an extreme case it might inhibit a potentially autistic person who does not show that behaviour from seeking a diagnosis

So we should also remove the ducks in a row and the cork images too? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

They are problematical, but the lead image has much more impact than others. The major problems in autism are communication-based and sensory (with resultant problems including anxiety, OCD etc.), stacking/lining up objects, rocking and hand flapping are irrelevant to the real impact of the condition, and not all autists do them. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

To address Greta: it does nothing to illustrate or inform a reader about autism. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neither does an image of a child stacking cans. It says nothing about life-long communication problems, alienation or sensory difficulties that make life really difficult, or increased suicide rates and lower life expectancy in autists. Plus an image of a small child merely reinforces the common misapprehension that autism is a childhood condition. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It demonstrates an autistic behaviour. You can't exactly illustrate any of those other things via an image, text is for that. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

But these behaviours are trivial, not universal and pander to the childhood condition stereotype. These represent considerable downsides. Perhaps an image of a non-vocal autistic person using a communication device would be ideal? It would eloquently indicate the communication difficulties common to all autists. Urselius (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was able to easily find several articles discussing can stacking. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00606-6 even uses videos of stacking then compares how autistic and non-autistic children react to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could not enumerate the number of books and papers on communication problems in autism I found on Google Scholar, even autistic non-verbalism had very many. But mere numbers is not really relevant to the marginality that the occurrence of the lining up and stacking of objects in small children has to autism as a condition and the centrality of communication problems. Urselius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an autistic person, I agree with you on this. The can stacking baby does a great job at representing an autistic behavior in an image. 🎸✒️ ZoidChan23 🥁🍕 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an autistic person, I profoundly disagree. The image merely reinforces a widely-held and incorrect opinion that autism is a childhood condition. Urselius (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right. And that it’s “childish “. Language Boi (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly I did decide to post about this after seeing that tweet Language Boi (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Autistic here. I share with you the feeling for the change, but bear with me here;

The boy stacking cans is an extremely iconic figure for us all, and, like the meme version of the C&BT article, will remain in our memories for generations to come, but it is most important that we remain focus in our objective to portray an informed picture of what is Autism, and if sacrificing the presence of this legendary image in favor of concreteness is what it takes, then we must adapt.

May our beloved boy live a thousand years more, forever in our minds. ThaNook (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I, as a person with autism, feel marginalized. You’re creating a false sense of consensus that doesn’t exist. Language Boi (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stacking objects (typically blocks) is a common behaviour of all children - in fact it is a developmental milestone (search "developmental milestones stacking blocks"). I don't think it's "iconic" of autism to have a picture of a child doing what all children normally do. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Making a new section so it's organized better.

I have somewhat changed my opinion on the disagreeing image. Since I'm seeing quite a few people (including anonymous users) wanting the image back, the picture somehow grew on me. But I still don't prefer the image; I'll be fine with whatever picture is used. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 22:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tonkarooson can we just put like 5 images of the most common autistic traits so everyones happy that one of the photos is one they they did? Anthony2106 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

cats have more then one image Anthony2106 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like an excellent idea, but the images would have to be found. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can make drawings, but they may not be that good as I almost never draw. Anthony2106 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lunascape has 2 images and buttons to swap them, maybe we could do that. Anthony2106 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

fuck it lets just put the autism sybole   by commons:user:MissLunaRose12 as that one is a different colour to the nurodiversity symbole and should be the new autism symbole.

This would make it consistent with AIDS and Diabetes. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

this Language Boi (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Language Boi its good isn't it? Anthony2106 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah honestly that seems perfect Language Boi (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

so you support puting the autism symbole? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Notcharizard @user:Mitch Ames @user:Urselius @user:Tonkarooson @User:Puella mortua @user:Traumnovelle @user:Language Boi @User:LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtlepeople what do you think about puting the symbole on the page. I pingned you to get you to see this section cus no one was responding. seeing this edit reminded me of my edit so I felt like coming here to ask about it. I also don't know if there is a rule about not pinging everyone so sorry if I broke that rule.

also the person who made this edit made a new section #Poll proposal, maybe that should go under here Anthony2106 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Personally I don't like the symbol, I think it doesn't convey anything of much inherently.

And I don't believe the poll proposal should be here, a poll proposal needs discussion for itself in it's design.

The difference between your edit and mine is you only had the support of 1 other on this page to put it up. Whereas there's many several voices to keep the can stacking picture on this talk page along with widespread public support on other platforms LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Really? I do not like the image much, myself. Urselius (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No because the symbol is representative of a social movement relating to the condition and not of the medical condition itself. See homosexual which has no lead image versus LGBT which has a lead image of a symbol of the social movement. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As this article covers the societal aspects of autism (the autism community, political lobbying etc.) as well as the medical aspects, arguments to exclude societal images purely because they are societal lack merit, on the grounds of logic, if nothing else. I dislike the child stacker image because it panders to the widespread and false idea that autism is purely or predominantly a childhood condition. As such I would much prefer the infobox to be free of images and 'the stacker' image to be placed somewhere in the body of the text, to satisfy those who have some apparent fondness for it. Urselius (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Urselius. It's not just a societal thing; a medical condition is part of the person who has it, so you cannot separate the societal aspect. The can-stacking behavior is also very hardly representative of autistic people; I know many personally and obsessive stacking is not part of any of their childhood behaviors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

so HIV/AIDS and Diabetes (the examples I used before) use the symboles because they are medical conditions that can be seperated from the person, unlike being autistic, so thats why we shouldnt use the symbole, is that what you were saying? Anthony2106 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nitpick: it's symbol, not "symbole" with an extra e, and "separated", not "seperated". Both of these can use symbols as well if there's a well-accepted one. There is also a community around being AIDS. In any case, what we do with those is a red herring; we are talking about autism, not AIDS or diabetes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes I know Im bad at spelling you don't need to remind me.

I wasnt trying to make a red herring I was trying to use an example of other pages with symbols, but these pages are too diffrent form this page and may not apply, autism is not a disease. In that case maybe it is a red herring.

Nitpick back: I think having AIDS or people with AIDS is the correct one for AIDS Anthony2106 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has a brief overview but it links to a larger main article. The article is still about the medical condition and not the societal aspects, hence why it says 'Main article: Societal and cultural aspects of autism' Traumnovelle (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No image is still a better option than an infantilising image to illustrate for a lifelong condition. Autism is a condition that primarily impacts communication, not dexterity. Plus there are plenty of autistic people, including children, with impaired dexterity who would find stacking cans at any age quite a challenge. The 'stacker' is not a good illustration of the condition and its effects or of autistic people in general. Urselius (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Stacking is non-specific to autism. The fact that Twitter thinks it's representative of autistic people is a problem, not something to base our editorial decision off of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I aggree that Twitter should not be involved with wikipedia editing, but there is one more thing we would try if we want a photo (but at this point I dont mind not having one I got used to it) we could try having more then one photo like I seid in #Having more then one image Anthony2106 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The other problem is that you cannot "see" autism. It's not like a bone fracture that's seen via x-ray or MRI imagery.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

its common for autistic people to have developmental coordination disorder so technicly autism dose affect dexterity - in a bad way. so now there is another reason not to use the stacker image Anthony2106 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would chose the baby stacking the cans over the infinity. The infinity symbol is used in the autistic community, the article is mostly written about the diagnosis more than the traits associated with the individual.

As to what Jasper said, even though you can't technically spot out autism until it's mentioned, you can describe it with the sentence including the word. Tonkarooson (discuss). 00:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tonkarooson: Your comment is confusing. If this is not about traits, then an image illustrating a(n) (incorrectly) purported trait (the can stacking image) is not the way to go.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you can see some autistic traits if you know enough about autism (eg you can see stimming), but everyone is diffrent, not everyone stacked cans as a kid, and I aggree with user:Urselius it makes people think its a kid thing (disablility/disorder/condition) and autism has nothing to do with dexterity apart from what I seid about DCD before. but the photo was a sitmmy activity thats an autistic trait, but I don't think its a poplour stim. maybe more photos could help like I menitoned in #Having more then one image but at this point I don't mind not having an image and if we do add more then one photo I wouldnt pick the stacker image to be one of them Anthony2106 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jasper Deng, @Anthony2106. It seems the best option is to have no image, or use the infinity. Tonkarooson (discuss). 00:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I see the reasoning behind using the infinity symbol, but I think the cans stacking image better represents the real-life experiences of autistic individuals, as made evident and obvious by the community support for it. It’s relatable and neutral, helping to visually connect readers to the topic. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle I agree user:Urselius it makes people think its a kids condition, and autism has nothing to do with dexterity apart from DCD being common amung autistics Anthony2106 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No it is certainly not neutral. It is a very prominent visual support of the widespread and pernicious viewpoint that autism only affects children. Given Wikipedia's prominence as an informational source for the general public we really need the lead of this article to be genuinely neutral, by not featuring any image. The 'stacker' can go into the body of the text to satisfy those who find the image endearing or relatable. Urselius (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

arguing for no image to avoid any kind of bias and be neutral? im sure you could make the case any image has a bias on every page on wikipedia.

And the infobox already says it is a lifelong duration, seems very clear to me LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would work if everyone read the infobox in detail, and if people were not more immediately impacted by images to a far greater extent than text, which they are! Using an image that is biased towards a particular, erroneous, viewpoint on a subject is not supported by arguing that every image might be perceived as biased. Which I am sure is mistaken. However, this argument is of no relevance because it carries no weight against the certainty that having no image at all is an entirely bias-free option.

Responding because I was tagged.

I like the kid stacking things - relatable content tbh. I don't make think it makes it look like a "childhood disorder" any more than it makes it look like a "people with short hair disorder" and I think it works better than the infinity symbol, which is great but doesn't feel as useful. It's more a community symbol, at least to me. I don't really have strong feelings on it either way, I think this article has a lot of huge issues and the image is not really one of them. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the article has way bigger issues than the image, but I do think that using an image of a small child for an article about something which is still widely misunderstood as a childhood thing is unhelpful.

I think the symbol would be an improvement, and I don't find any of the arguments against it at all convincing, but like you, I don't have particularly strong feelings about this... Oolong (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed a concern @1Veertje expressed in an edit summary and lengthy talk discussion above that autism cannot be characterised as varying in severity, and that varying degrees of impairment are entirely the result of comorbid disorders such as ID. This contradicts the global scientific consensus. The ICD-11 and World Health Organization concluded that autism is characterised as: "Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions... Specific manifestations of these deficits vary according to chronological age, verbal and intellectual ability, and disorder severity.^[1]

Moreover, the DSM-5 has an entire dedicated section, as an example: "Table 2: Severity Levels for Autism Spectrum Disorder" and that severity is to be specified.^[2]

One can also look at some peer-reviewed papers, that I summarily found, for further evidence: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-016-2731-7, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-008-0674-3

Therefore, I suggest that their edit is retracted or at least partly undone to reflect the fact that varying severity levels are indeed part of the disorder itself, not merely because of comorbidities.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no evidence that "Independent living is unlikely with more severe forms of the condition.". What's the point of saying something so definitive when, as I pointed out, there are autistic individuals like Temple Grandin who were thought of as "severe" who nonetheless grew up to live independent lives? functioning labels are very regrettable 1Veertje (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying, Vera, but I doubt that my points have been adequately addressed.

Re. ASD Severity The citation you provided appears to be a blog post as opposed to a peer-reviewed, scientific article. It can also be said that it doesn't overturn results from controlled studies that the global scientific consensus is based upon. In my view, a failure to consider this perspective and instead choose to focus exclusively on the opinions expressed by advocacy groups risks becoming a theoretical exercise far removed from daily clinical practice, and whose output depends on ideological perspectives and the specific subjective choices made when assessing the evidence.

Re. outcomes associated with independent living I did not contest that people with ASD are probably unable to live independently, but rather, contrary to your statements, that it is a disorder established with varying levels of severity. Regarding rates of independence, though, research seems to suggest that:

"Autism and Severe ID seem to be at particular risk for poor community inclusion and living skills..." (Gray et al., June, 2014).

"Factors related to psychophysical stability and daily living, financial management, and integrated community living and housing were all found to influence the ability of adults with ASD to live independently"(

Ghanouni et al., Nov, 2021

).

Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the thing: most of the people commenting and who likely wrote this page and "protected" it from correction by calling it "protection for vandalism..." You casually talk about the spectrum of autism, high support needs individuals, and whether comorbidity plays any part in presentation (hint: high supports needs doesn't mean no support needs)... I can't afford to even get a diagnosis because it's such a racket. Few doctor will diagnose it in adults and the ones that do charge thousands of dollars. And, insurance does not pay for it. Those who need the diagnosis most don't have the financial freedom or capabilities to afford that. I'm sure, as you read this, you're reminding yourself "But, you're high support needs..." ignoring you are insinuating to yourself this means no support needs. Those who have needed support all their life, but have not gotten it. They still need it, have struggled along, are still struggling still, and can't afford it. I was diagnosed with savant syndrome as a child because my parent fought to keep the doctor from diagnosing me with autism. At the time, autism was still consider childhood schizophrenia. So, for that I am glad she did it. But, it does not help now. Getting a diagnosis now will be almost impossible, and convincing people that I struggle as much as I do is less so. It doesn't matter that even people who knew me long enough to remember the entire family teasing me, or parent in front of me because they considered me speaking, walking, and hitting other early childhood developmental milestones late. I REMEMBER them calling me retarded, slow, and saying I was going to need lots of help or be put in a care facility; saying I was very "retarded" and not all there. Not knowing that I had a very rich inner dialogue, one that I used to help me teach myself to talk, and then I just one day started talking. Because I went from completely nonverbal to speaking like a little adult just before turning 3 yrs old; I was actually first classified as being a prodigy in the neuropsych evaluation before the start of school. It wasn't just the speaking, it was what else I was able to comprehend and had already learned, or taught myself by the time I had begun speaking. And, because I spoke so well, people tended to forget the earlier issues. When clear social issues and other issues that most people associate with autism (then and now) became apparent I would be reevaluated, and I would be reclassified as a savant. My parent would use that diagnosis to stave off and help people forget how they conditioned me to not present autistic in other ways long before any of that! While it was conditioning, I will not let people continue to be blind to the fact that most of that conditioning is a result of sheer trauma from abuse. You get to disavow yourself of damage done by telling yourself that if a person masks, that if they're able to not be autistic, or able to stop being autistic, then they must not be or must not be too much; NONE OF THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING THOUGH. You have the children who were truly just conditioned through things like ABA; and if you have tried to convince yourself that ABA is anything other than that, then you are the worst kind of abuser. But, there are the children who were truly abused, terrorize, and traumatized into masking. Not that most will care anyway, as that would mess up their narrative. For many, it is to acknowledge that they have done something possibly horrific to someone they care about; and many people will not allow themselves to acknowledge that. For others, it is to acknowledge something that they see as a severe flaw that they can draw correlations or similarities to themselves. Once again, most humans will not allow themselves to do that! Trauma! That is how an overwhelming majority of us were "conditioned" into what I've had people call not "appearing to be autistic..." All because they are too ignorant to know, and too lazy to do actual research and find out what autism is, that you can have something comorbid with autism, and that can differentiate how a person presents (AS WITH ANY CONDITION). Even Temple Grandin acknowledges that society has a flawed, ignorant, and biased view of what autism is. That view is often reasserted ignorantly by ignorance in the medical field. This causes society to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of what their autistic children will grow up to be?m. They know what autism is, they're told what autism is, and they will make sure their child is exactly what they KNOW autism is! But, if you have a parent like Temple's who was determined to show them that just is not true. Well, you never know what you'll get. 96.234.220.222 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have twice indicated that you don't have doubts that vandalism prompted the page protection levels. Here's a few versions of the page when it was unprotected. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Other versions had legal problems (e.g., libel), so they had to be deleted.

If you are interested in editing this article, you need to create a free account. No e-mail address or other information is required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism is certainly a problem, as it is on any high-traffic page, but this one is on the watchlist of 2,307 people... do you know if any of the vandalisations lasted long? Oolong (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the wiki article about risk- risk is defined as something “bad happening”. Is this article implying autism spectrum is a bad thing? Please explain why Autism is a “risk” (something bad), I’d like to know more about your bigotry. 2606:CE40:70:7F06:7D91:2B4:804E:2B0 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Outside the term "risk factor", a phrase with a medical/technical meaning, the word here is used for instance in the phrase "risk of suicidality". Suicide is a pretty bad thing. You don't need to wikilink "bigotry", by the way. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Drmies, thank you for your clarification! However, I believe the OP's point is worth consideration.

  To be specific, the term "risk" comes up a 47 times in this article, not just regarding suicidality or video game addiction (which is appropriate usage, yes). Most of these usages are regarding ASD itself.

  For example, the infobox plus "higher risk of a child developing ASD"; "many risk factors identified in the research literature may contribute to ASD"; "autism risk"; and many more times.

  The infobox uses the term Risk Factor, which its article defines as "a variable associated with an increased risk of disease or infection". I do not believe autism is classified as a disease any longer. Neither disease nor infection comes up in the ICD definition. I more often hear the term "condition."

  A more suitable term than risk would be "Causes." In fact, this is the title of the article Causes of autism. It also is the heading and term the ADA uses in its description of ASD. Evedawn99 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I agree "causes" is better but we might need more votes before a consensus is made Anthony2106 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This is incorrect. The term "risk factor" is used widely for neurodevelopmental disorders, and the definition you are finding are superficial and not reflective of the scientific consensus. For instance, see the International Consensus Statement on ADHD (Faraone et al., 2021-2022) which concludes "Most cases of ADHD [another neurodevelopmental disorder] are caused by the combined effects of many genetic and environmental risks". And further one, the ICS states "For most people with ADHD, many genetic and environmental risk factors accumulate to cause the disorder". Clearly, the use of both "risk" and "risk factor" in the context of neurodevelopmental disorders is warranted. A talk page consensus should probably be used to guide edits exclusively in matters requiring subject determination, and not overturn objective facts like these. Note that this is not to say the term "causes" cannot be used but the term "risk/risk factors" are not invalidated.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think this is the point that they're trying to make. This is what makes your point appear to be bigotry. I'm not saying that it is. But, you clearly missed the point that risk of developing autism versus environmental risks (i.e. risks as it pertains to chances of developmental differences manifesting in vitro versus risks as it pertains to outside source of stimuli as causes for the developmental differences. Correlation and causation are not the same thing, and I think that's what you're conflating here, and that does not look very good as the differences in the two appear obvious. Especially as the risk being discussed is the condition of autism itself, not the causes thereof. When the use of the word risk is stated 47 times in the article, many were specifically referring to autism itself, not its causes. HarmonyA8 (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks your comment but I don’t quite understand your point. First, referencing the scientific consensus should not even imply bigotry so that makes little sense to me. But the term ‘risk’ and ‘risk factors’ are clearly used in reference to the causes of neurodevelopmental disorders, not just disease. That’s essentially all my point. I’m not implying cause from correlational evidence; the consensus statement itself contextualises risk as a causal factor. Thus, the reasoning that these terms cannot be used because they are exclusive for disease is wrong. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, 'risk' is pretty much universally used to describe the chance of an undesirable thing - as the Wikipedia summary says, 'Possibility of something bad happening'.

  It is not a neutral term.

  You might like to check out Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers, which suggests phrases like “At risk” for ASD⁷³ should be substituted for something like 'Increased likelihood/chance of autism'. No accuracy is sacrificed in such rephrasing! See also [10] on this specific point, and [11] and [12] for more general considerations on language use, accuracy and neutrality. Oolong (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Again - there is a global scientific consensus that "risk" is usable in the context of neurodevelopmental disorders. Sorry to be blunt, but quite frankly, I did cite the International Consensus Statement on ADHD [another neurodevelopmental disorder] and the scientific literature unanimously use the term for ASD as well (e.g., Dietert et al., 2010; Mojgan et al., 2017; Belmonte et al., 2022). Citation 11 you have given is a blog post, which is not peer-reviewed scientific literature. The other two are advocacy papers ,and they don't overturn the consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The Open Notebook is a reputable source, and the other two are editorials/Perspective articles in scientific journals. I can provide many more citations if you really want.

  You are greatly exaggerating the degree of consensus on this. Oolong (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  To take another example, the textbook 'Autism: A New Introduction to Psychological Theory and Current Debate', authored by two of the leading experts in this field, explains (on page 30):

  "The current diagnostic criteria, in both the 5th edition of the Diagnostic an Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; APA, 2013 - see Table 3.1 and the forthcoming 11th edition of the International Classification Diseases (ICD-11; WHO, 2018) specify only one category for autism. This is termed "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (ASD) in recognition of the variability of presentation. The use of the word 'disorder' as part of the diagnostic ter minology is rejected by many autistic people, who emphasise that autism is a natural part of variation in the human population. For this reason, we refer to autism, rather than ASD, in this book." Oolong (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Notably, the 'Avoiding Ableist Language' paper, which only came out in 2021, has already been cited well over 1000 times.

  Do you have an argument in favour of using value-laden language like 'risk' instead of neutral terms like 'chance' which get across the message just as clearly? Oolong (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I am not "exaggerating the consensus on this". The examples given in the article currently are as follows:

  The ICD-11 and World Health Organization (WHO) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.

  The DSM-5 and American Psychological Association (APA) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.

  The UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental/developmental disorder.

  Because these are guidelines that are globally standardised for scientists and diagnosticians and are developed by a unification of thousands of researchers, they reflect the global scientific consensus on the matter. Even International Consensus Statements exist attesting to the fact that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g. Cole et al., 2019).

  Blog posts are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers and thus are not "reputable" in comparison to the scientific literature. Regarding the other two citations, as I have already addressed, they are advocating for something that is not currently established. Thus, they are not sources that can overturn the statement that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder as it's currently defined. In fact, several peer-reviewed papers cited in this Wikipedia article criticise such advocacy papers on their logic that ASD is not a disorder, concluding that it indeed is in accordance with guidelines worldwide. So even in the context of advocacy papers, your opinion has not been demonstrated to represent a large number of researchers by any means.

  Unfortunately, none of this was addressed in your comment. I am having to essentially reiterate myself here.

  The Wikipedia article does a good job of balancing the debate on whether the term should be changed in the future, so I don't see what your arguing for exactly to change.

  The text-book you cited appears to - again - be implicitly advocating for a change in terms. It is also based on faulty logic. ASD is not incompatible with the concept of neurodiversity. There is indeed an underlying dimensional spectrum to ASD (which is why it's called autism spectrum disorder) but the term disorder is defined by the presence of impairment, wherein we draw the line and make a categorical diagnosis. There really is no contradiction there. The claim that it's "ableist" is just a subjective proclamation. On the contrary, continuing to espouse that autism is not a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder may be offensive to those who actually experience impairment and dislike being obfuscated with mere diversity. This is for at least two reasons. First, traits of autism is not autism; you must be significantly impaired by those symptoms to be diagnosable (which is why it’s a disorder). Second, ‘diversity’ typically implies positivity and thus may be offensive to those who do not view it as such. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  As regarding risk, I'd like to reiterate that the term is used in International Consensus Statements for the context of neurodevelopmental disorders and is used consistently in systematic reviews for ASD as well that I cited above. Unfortunately, none of these were acknowledged in your reply. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that we should defer to the relevant style guide from NIH (the USA's National Institutes of Health) on this point, although some aspects of its guidance elsewhere are a little confused and/or outdated:

"Use increased likelihood for autism instead of terms like risk of autism or at risk for autism. Likelihood is more specific and less stigmatizing."

I haven't seen anything resembling a counter-argument to this.

While we're at it, the same source recommends that we "Use the terms characteristics, or traits, instead of symptoms when referring to people with autism."

Notably, elsewhere the NIH recommends to "Check a variety of sources, including self-advocacy groups and organizations led by the communities you are writing about, to see what language they use and why."

This seems like eminently sensible advice to me, and I'm pleased to see it from such an authoritative source (specifically Shannon Wooldridge, Public Affairs Specialist, NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison, writing for their 'Science, Health, and Public Trust' section - "a place for discussion of ways to improve the quality and usefulness of information for the public about science and health"). Oolong (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please actually address the rebuttals to your comments here before deflecting. I have cited International Consensus Statements, the global diagnostic criteria, international clinical guidelines, and systematic reviews which unanimously attest to (1) ASD is a disorder; (2) the term “risk” can be used in the context of neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD; (3) ASD is characterised by symptoms and the presence of significant impairment, not “traits”. You are objectively contradicting the global scientific consensus by denying this, and that is why such changes in terms should not be made in this article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Paradoxically, different NIMH guidelines conflict with the one you cited, as some explicitly use the terms symptoms, disorder and risk in accordance with the scientific consensus: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd

So even the NIMH you are citing is not a valid source to overturn the scientific consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the NIH doesn't always follow its own style guide. That's not a particularly strong argument for saying that we shouldn't follow its recommendations on this, but it is worth noting.

You haven't addressed most of my points either, and I'm afraid that puts me off investing a huge amount of time in addressing yours - I recognise that this might put us at an impasse. You have denied a couple of my points, but have not provided persuasive arguments for your denials.

I can't find the 'International Consensus Statement' you refer to (Cole et al., 2019). Do you have a reference for that? Thanks.

You keep referring to "scientific consensus", but the questions of whether autism is, or should be referred to as, a disorder, are not actually scientific ones. We're talking about terminology, not objective facts to be determined by experiments. To the extent that there's anything to be determined scientifically, one centrally important question - which has received significant attention from researchers - is surely how the people being described feel about it - on which question see e.g. Kenny et al (2016), Lei, Jones & Brosnan (2021) and Bury at al (2020).

Again, there is nothing close to universal consensus among relevant scientists on the status of autism as a disorder, as such - but even if there was, scientists are not in fact the only ones whose views matter on this; we're discussing how best to describe a population, not what the empirical facts are. Hence the NIH's advice, again: "Check a variety of sources, including self-advocacy groups and organizations led by the communities you are writing about, to see what language they use and why."

It seems worth repeating that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Oolong (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see the recent talk page section I made entitled "Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?". In that, I provide a systematic review of the totality of scientific evidence to show a clear, unanimous consensus, going through numerous consensus statements, meta-analyses and international guidelines, and I cite indications from Wikipedia guidelines. The latter affirm that the article must continue to refer to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder due to the pertinence of the scientific consensus and that public opinion in no way sways that determination. I have in fact addressed your points and do so in that talk page section more extensively. If you wish to discuss further, please do so under there. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue appears to be that you get hung up singularly on the word risk. So, understanding the differences in their uses in terminology here appears to be missed. The risk of developing autism versus environmental risks (i.e. risks as it pertains to the CHANCES of developmental differences manifesting in utero versus risks as it pertains to outside sources of stimuli as CAUSES for the developmental differences themselves. More widely, as I stated before, the word risk is often used for neither of those; rather to describe the condition of having the disorder itself. Most scientifically peered reviewed research has stated that autism is a developmental issue that begins in the womb. My issue is not the use of the word. It is just how the word is used, which is at times incorrect, with no consistency. So again, I am not saying that you are being bigoted in your language. I am stating that the use of the word in certain situations can be seen as problematic by those experience the condition themselves first-hand. HarmonyA8 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I don’t contest the use of the word with an interchangeable one in certain contexts (like likelihood), as the scientific consensus indeed does so. I was mainly trying to rebut the notion that the term risk can never be used in any circumstances for characterising neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD as some have implied or explicitly argued, as I recall. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please reframe behavioral deficit-centric influence of the autism industrial complex to honor the lived experience of autistic people with many different manifestations. Do not assume that lack of speaking means lack of intelligence. Furthermore, consider root somatosensory causes of so-called social communication difficulties. Consider the eyes of the neurodominant beholders. 2600:1014:B131:5BCD:0:10:B10B:DA01 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder. This is the global scientific consensus. See the ICD-11, the World Health Organisation and the DSM-5, as examples, all cited in the article to substantiate the classification. So it is to be kept.

Various approaches have been used to establish this fact. A very useful one stipulates that there must be scientifically established evidence that those suffering the condition have a significant deviation or deficit in or failure of a physical or psychological mechanism that is universal to humans. That is, all humans normally would be expected, regardless of culture, to have developed that neuropsychological trait or ability.

And there must be equally incontrovertible scientific evidence that this serious deficiency or deviation leads to harm to the individual. Harm is established through evidence of increased mortality, morbidity, or impairment in the major life activities required of one’s developmental stage in life. Major life activities are those domains of functioning such as education, social relationships, family functioning, independence and self-sufficiency, and occupational functioning that all humans of that developmental level are expected to perform.

As attested by the scientific consensus, autism candidly meets such criteria and thus is a neurodevelopmental disorder. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is incorrect to suggest that there is a general scientific consensus that autism is a disorder. The neurodiversity perspective is taken seriously by a large and growing number of researchers, and contradicts the assumption that differences like autism should be seen as disorders.

See for example this Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science; the journal Neurodiversity; Wiley's 38-journal neurodiversity special issue; or indeed the 31,600 Google Scholar results for the term. Oolong (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not taken seriously by a "large and growing number of researchers". Autism is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder by the ICD-11, World Health Organization, DSM-5, NICE etc because it is defined by the presence of impairment, not merely symptoms. That is thereby citing the worldwide scientific consensus, and that of clinicians who unanimously use the above diagnostic criteria. In response to the article you cited, the lede of the article further states that:

"On the contrary, other scientists argue that ASD impairs functioning in many ways that are inherent to the disorder itself and unrelated to society.[17][18]"

The neurodiversity movement is a political, not a scientific, movement. Many people also subscribe to the anti-psychiatry movement, whose presence doesn't negate the scientific consensus on the validty of psychiatry as it's largely political in nature. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The neurodiversity movement is absolutely a scientific (or perhaps more accurately, meta-scientific) movement as well as a political one. The choice of the term 'neurodiversity paradigm' is neither accidental, nor inaccurate.

You are simply incorrect to claim that neurodiversity is not taken taken seriously by a large and growing number of researchers, which should already have been clear from my comment above. Oolong (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have addressed the above reply in another page, but I will reprint it here so others don't miss it:

I am not "exaggerating the consensus on this". The examples given in the article currently are as follows:

The ICD-11 and World Health Organization (WHO) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.

The DSM-5 and American Psychological Association (APA) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.

The UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental/developmental disorder.

Because these are guidelines that are globally standardised for scientists and diagnosticians and are developed by a unification of thousands of researchers, they reflect the global scientific consensus on the matter. Even International Consensus Statements exist attesting to the fact that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g. Cole et al., 2019).

Blog posts are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers and thus are not "reputable" in comparison to the scientific literature. Regarding the other two citations, as I have already addressed, they are advocating for something that is not currently established. Thus, they are not sources that can overturn the statement that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder as it's currently defined. In fact, several peer-reviewed papers cited in this Wikipedia article criticise such advocacy papers on their logic that ASD is not a disorder, concluding that it indeed is in accordance with guidelines worldwide. So even in the context of advocacy papers, your opinion has not been demonstrated to represent a large number of researchers by any means.

Unfortunately, none of this was addressed in your comment. I am having to essentially reiterate myself here.

The Wikipedia article does a good job of balancing the debate on whether the term should be changed in the future, so I don't see what your arguing for exactly to change.

The text-book you cited appears to - again - be implicitly advocating for a change in terms. It is also based on faulty logic. ASD is not incompatible with the concept of neurodiversity. There is indeed an underlying dimensional spectrum to ASD (which is why it's called autism spectrum disorder) but the term disorder is defined by the presence of impairment, wherein we draw the line and make a categorical diagnosis. There really is no contradiction there. The claim that it's "ableist" is just a subjective proclamation. On the contrary, continuing to espouse that autism is not a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder may be offensive to those who actually experience impairment and dislike being obfuscated with mere diversity. This is for at least two reasons. First, traits of autism is not autism; you must be significantly impaired by those symptoms to be diagnosable (which is why it’s a disorder). Second, ‘diversity’ typically implies positivity and thus may be offensive to those who do not view it as such. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Too often people in society have the “too long, didn't read” mentality; which only breeds ignorance. I perceive you have the intelligence coupled with patience enough to read the whole response. There was a time when all medical text considered hysteria. An actual medical condition that was mostly suffered by females. There was a time when there was almost no scientific reference to many of the health issues female face. And I'm talking in the 1900s. Something can be classified a certain way in the ISD for years, while the debate of the issue rages on before proper terminology, and understanding is updated. As the previous person stated, there is not consensus on the condition itself, much less its causes. For you to state that there is universal consensus on almost anything scientific is to show an ignorance of science itself. Also, the neurodiversity movement, as you call it; has nothing to do with politics. Unless by political, you mean from the sides that continue to disregard emerging understanding of the condition. And, much of what is often regarded as the neurodiversity movement, are actual neurodivergents. The people who all of this affects the most. It has only been within recent decades, and by this, I mean the last two; that understanding of the condition has grown or even been accepted widely in the medical community, much more society at large (who are often the last to know this information). As you perfectly ensample. The only ones that feel obfuscated, by the term "diversity" are those that continue to accept archaic ideas, that have not only been proven incorrect, but that are widely disavowed by actual medical professionals and the scientific community at large. The reason that it is a spectrum is because comorbid conditions can not only influence how the condition manifest itself, but also how the person is impacted. It has nothing to do with the severity of the condition itself. Your ignorance of what severely impacts someone is also very telling. I knew someone who died of cancer. Many thought it to be quite sudden. The only thing is, that person didn't die suddenly. They had known they had cancer for years. But, it would be found out that when the cancer was discovered, it had already metastasized through much of that region. Though this person visited doctors often for quite some time before the diagnosis, complaining of problems to the affected area (all of which severely impacted them). They were often turned away as being a “hysterical” woman or a drug seeker. The excuse used was the person looking healthy and the limited non-corresponding tests coming back normal. The problem was missed for years, until it had almost become too late for treatment. This is a problem in the medical community that is acknowledged by the medical community. For quite some time there has been inherent biases in the medical community. Though advancements have stemmed much of that, much still remains. Many newly diagnosed neurodivergents are often people diagnosed much later in life. All because they did not have other comorbid conditions that presented symptoms that were more easily recognizable, and having the ability to function to an extent in society in what they perceive as a normal manner. But, all of the years that person lived, they were being severely impacted. Most were often neglected in their need and left to adjust to the world on their own. And, this is a risk for developing other comorbid conditions; like depression or other mental issues. Nevermind the high suicide rates among autistic people; a clear correlation to society's ignorance and the inherent bigotry that still pervades in medicine. People on the spectrum often face abuse form both society and by medical professionals they seek help from. A psychiatrist once told me, that psychiatry believes that it has a clear answer for many mental disorders. So, it is easy for many to call a condition that is not well understood, and hard to treat something else that is easier. And, doctors are not immune from misdiagnosing patients thus. And, he is right. I will give two more very quick examples from personal experience. I was born with a condition called ehlers-danlos syndrome. It has severely impacted my life in health. Because it has no clear manifestations. At first, it is easy to misdiagnose. And to miss entirely and since the person often looks perfectly normal. This is how they are often pushed to interact with society. So, they learn to mask their pain. The ignorant believes that the ability to mask means that it is not impacting, or it is not detrimental. In spite of a lifetime of sublaxations, dislocations, cardiac anomalies, pain and other associate issues; I was not diagnosed until after I was 30 with a condition that I was born with. By which time, it had gotten to a point of not only severely impacting my life, but completely shutting it down. I had one doctor that had the audacity to yell (not just state loudly, but to yell) in the middle of the office waiting room what difference does it make if he misdiagnosed me with a condition he can treat, since he can’t treat the condition I actually have. Let that sink in… The second: when I started school, I had to have a neuropsych evaluation. It was demanded by the Board of Education for admittance. The reason is because I was 3 years old. It had to be proven that was both mentally, as well as intellectually prepared to start school. And, to do so with children that could be much older than me. I was certified a genius. A certified child prodigy; when I started school. I would change school later during elementary years. The experience was extremely jarring. The abuse I would receive from both teachers and children alike, caused me to shut down and manifest attributes that caused teachers to demand I be sent back for another neuropsych eval. At this time, I would have not only had been through the severely traumatizing experience of the change and all that it brought, but I had also experienced trauma outside of that in my everyday life. Whatever the exact same doctor that diagnosed me as a genius child prodigy saw, it caused him to decide to change my diagnosis to savant. And, this was only because one of my parents fought against diagnosing me as autistic. You see, there was also a time; and this was the time, when autism was diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia. Knowing this, as well as knowing the issues faced by my neurodivergent parent; they fought to have the diagnoses struck from my record. For that reason alone, the doctor struck the fact that I was a certified genius from my record as well. After which, I would receive heightened abuse from some teachers who found it proper to do so because now they had proof I wasn't a genius. I was just an idiot retard, even if it wasn't on my record. Would you like to take a good guess on the severity of impact on my life from just these two examples? And, these are actually mild… HarmonyA8 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

See the talk page section I recently made called “Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?”. In there, I provide a systematic review of the scientific evidence. The totality of international consensus statements, guidelines and meta-analyses clearly show a unanimous scientific consensus on the fact that ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and autism itself indeed has varying severity levels. Unfortunately, no one critiquing this is actually willing to discuss the mountains of references.

Moreover, Wikipedia guidelines I cited indicate this wording must be kept per the pertinence of those sources relative to public opinion.

I will not be reiterating myself here because I have already addressed some of these objections elsewhere and in extensively in that new talk section. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to make a second point that the neurodiversity movement and its terminology it’s trying to impose are not scientific, they’re indeed political. They were coined and intended for the neurodiversity movement, which came out of autism activism. They've always been political.

See these blog posts by Judy Singer: https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html?m=1

“Is Neurodiversity a scientific term? No, it's a political term”.

If she, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement, acknowledges these issues, that we point out, then maybe you should give that some thought. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first, it's extremely inaccurate to suggest that Judy Singer "launched the movement". What she did was to form a portmanteau out of a phrase and idea that was already in use on a mailing list she was a part of [13] and use it in her undergraduate dissertation, which was later published as a book chapter. She has occasionally made contributions to debates since. I agree with her on some things, disagree on others. She's hardly a leading light of the movement, and was almost entirely absent from it for around 20 years. I state these things simply to correct the factual record and provide context.

The article you cite is not bad - it makes some decent points, and there's not much that I actively disagree with. Again, the idea of neurodiversity is most accurately meta-scientific, rather than scientific as such: that is, it's about science (among other things). I don't think Judy would dispute this. As she says in the article you cite, on some level it's a truism scientifically: yes, "there is a virtually infinite diversity of humans on the planet, with infinitely diverse minds complexified further by experience in equally diverse bodies."

Accepting this diversity has many scientific implications, however. I'm just going to dump links to some articles discussing some of these, because I don't have that much time right now.

• https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221129123
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/brx2.70
• https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.13886
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.13255
• https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/3/3/70

Oolong (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it isn't clear already: 'neurodiversity' is not scientific in exactly the same sense that 'disorder' is not scientific. Oolong (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for providing these links but the discussion is diverting greatly from the main point of the issue. I would just like to, once again, summarise the point of my involvement here as in retrospect I don't think I've clarified the main issue at hand well and I apologise for that. I would ultimately like to reach a more definitive agreement on some of these issues.

So, the reason why I refer you to that new talk page section is because I keep seeing statements like "there is no scientific consensus on these issues" with people advocating the article be changed to not refer to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Yet, the mountains of evidence I referenced there shows there is indeed a unanimous scientific consensus globally on the fact that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels because the evidence indicating it is so overwhelming. Wikipedia guidelines indicate that the peer-reviewed guidelines, diagnostic criteria, systematic reviews and consensus statements I cited are to be used in substantiating those classifications and that public opinion (e.g., blog posts or advocacy papers) in no way sway that determination. Therefore, this Wikipedia article must continue to refer to autism as such.

If you believe the Wikipedia article should instead frame autism as a mere neurodiversity and/or not being characterised with symptoms/impairments/severity, or something else in contrary to those references, please justify your reasoning under that talk page, accounting for all the citations I provided.

It's understandable that some may disagree personally with the classification and I don't want to invalidate the existence of advocacy papers or blog posts, but as things stand now, it would be erroneous to deviate the Wikipedia article from the scientific consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've said this a few times now: you're greatly overstating your case when you say things like "there is indeed a unanimous scientific consensus globally".

Maybe it's autistic literal-mindedness, but when you make objectively false statements like this and stand by them after prevented with evidence that refutes them, I find it very difficult to engage with the rest of what you're writing. Oolong (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Once again, I refer you to the recent talk page section I made where I cited a mountain of references, including consensus statements, and indications from Wikipedia guidelines. So far, you haven’t acknowledged any of that at all and thus are in no position to claim it’s “overstated”. That’s essentially the point I’m repeatedly having to make here. So if you believe it indeed is not a scientific consensus in contrary to the evidence, please actually address it. Thank you. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes.

The thing is that you have insisted on denying what seem to me to be irrefutably accurate statements like 'The neurodiversity perspective is taken seriously by a large and growing number of researchers'.

I provided ample evidence for this, and your response reads something like 'sure, one of the world's biggest scientific publishers is doing a 38-journal special issue on this topic, which is mentioned in more than 30,000 peer-reviewed papers, but I still maintain that no actual scientist agrees with one of its central conclusions, that "disorder" is at best a misleading term when applied to autism, despite two of the world's leading autism researchers explicitly disclaiming the term in their 2019 textbook on the topic.'

I'm sure we could find some common ground if we look, but can you see how the above doesn't seem like a tenable position?

I assume there must be some miscommunication here, perhaps caused by us having different meanings in mind for unanimity, consensus or maybe scientist? Oolong (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, it seems to me that you are completely ignoring the existence and validity of a mountain of scientific literature I cited consisting of many national guidelines around the world, consensus statements, systematic reviews, reports from professional associations, and standardised international diagnostic criteria that collectively indicate a clear and unanimous scientific consensus, worldwide, thereby effectively rebutting your narratives. Our critics can cite one text-book and a series of advocacy papers - some of which aren't peer reviewed, which I do indeed address in the talk page entitled "Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?". The miscommunication in my view is that none of this is being addressed while I have addressed your references, so I'd like to conclude our discussion here unless you are able to provide countering evidence in the aforementioned talk section - or at least handle such criticism more respectfully by not ignoring it. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So you're simply ignoring the large and growing number of researchers who disagree with you, and insisting that they don't count at all.

Evidently you are using between one and three of the words in the phrase "unanimous scientific consensus" in a non-standard sense.

Well, at least we have clarity now, I guess! Oolong (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wow, great rebuttal! The references you have previously provided - two advocacy papers and a text book that are contradicted by other rebuttals and textbooks, as I have shown, are certainly not representing "a large" and "growing" number of researchers. They do not stand any relevance whatsoever to the mountains of scientific literature cited, none of which you even acknowledge. Even the very Wikipedia article concludes that the ICD-11, for one example of many, represents a production "by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide" wherein autism is defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments, and varying severity levels.

The references you cited are also advocating for something that is not currently established. Thus, they are not sources that can overturn the global scientific consensus that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder as it's currently defined.

I will now conclude the conversation here as you are clearly commenting in bad faith by avoiding all of the evidence. It's a shame, really, as this is not my opinion per se, despite it being treated like it is, considering I am just representing the conclusions of scientists around the world. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, diversity implies just that; diversity. You can have a diversity of problems, that is not a positive thing. People's ignorance should never dictate a matter. It is because of people's ignorance that I have suffered abuse. Many are often abused and tormented into masking; such as myself. In spite of what I know my passed to be, I would still more likely to be misdiagnosed with an easier to manage mental condition that I do not have, than I would to be diagnosed autistic. Can you imagine how that severely and negatively impacts my life? Ignorance will eventually only impact a thing severely and negatively! HarmonyA8 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

AGREED. It is not a disorder! (Coming from a autistic person) 206.57.152.111 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an autistic person who knows what words mean, by very definition it is a disorder. Disorder - a deviation from the normal system or order, an upset of health; ailment, an irregularity, a disturbance in physical or mental health or function, an abnormal condition that affects the body's function, and can be physical or mental... HarmonyA8 (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which part of that definition do you think it fits, specifically? Oolong (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dashing24 why did you delete Wentworth Miller's image in this edit? you didn't leave behind an edit summery so now I'm curious. Anthony2106 (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

because all it does is reinforce how autistic people are so weird and whacky bro 82.168.236.78 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@82.168.236.78 highly doubt it Anthony2106 (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It actually helps the intelligent person of understanding see, it really is a spectrum. And, that probably what they believe autism to be, is not what it is at all. HarmonyA8 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HarmonyA8 what they think autism is: Lines in the Sand (House) Anthony2106 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

only autistic people will ever get that. we live in a world of adhd 82.168.236.78 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am writing because I fear that the opening to the article is difficult for the layperson to understand. Forgive me if there is something I have missed, but to me, "symptoms of deficient reciprocal social communication" sounds verbose and overly complicated. I feel that the previous "difficulties in social interaction and communication" is superior to this wording. I would edit this myself, but I would like to seek a consensus first. Please share your thoughts below if you have the inclination. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Terminology should not be dumbed down per se merely so the lay person can understand it as this is is the main English page, and not Simple English, which is available for this reason on Wikipedia. The definition given conforms to the ICD-11, World Health Organization, DSM-5 cited in the article and the other one you have given here is more ambiguous and less accurate. But thank you for checking on this issue and hopefully a consensus can be formed. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the lead should be written in simpler language than the rest of the article. If that means that you have to "dumb down" a couple of sentences, then that's okay. You can keep the medicalese if you want; the guidelines only say not to put it at the top of the article (or as the first few sentences in a long section). See WP:MTAA for a good explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying that. I think that’s fine as long as the underlying concepts are kept and consistent with the global scientific consensus (I.e., WHO, ICD-11, DSM-5, NICE, APA guidelines) so important information is not redacted. Basically, rather than shortening the first lede sentence, it can just be reworded differently. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's very badly written. Oolong (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any suggestions as to how to improve the wording? FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

how about very strong imagination that makes talking to "normal people" challenging? i'm autistic and my language skills are far beyond the people i meet everyday, which in itself causes problems. in my opinion all autism is is just a very strong imagination, unusually strong, so strong that people think it's an illness.

problems with small talk, chit chatting, "being normal" 82.168.236.78 (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a very interesting take, but it isn't medical. It therefore can't be in the opening of the article. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It’s not ‘badly written’. It’s precisely how ASD is defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), ICD-11, DSM-5, NICE guidelines etc. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm now very satisfied with the wording. If nobody has any problems with it, I suggest we keep this wording until further notice. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It definitely was badly written, I'm afraid. Sorry to be blunt. The phrasing was different from any of those sources, as far as I can see? I'm not sure which specific sources you had in mind?

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for a general audience, and leads in particular need to be written with that in mind. Oolong (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the editor had the ICD in mind. Perhaps it wasn't written verbatim, but I can see significant sampling from the ICD text. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just want to bring to attention that we have a Simple English Wikipedia for this purpose. The page can be found at simple:Autism. Lordseriouspig 10:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear wikipedia community,

My name's Noam, 32 from Israel. I was born with Autism. Back in my childhood, they used the name Asperger Syndrome, which is still a name used today, but officially the name was changed to a mild type of autism, or high functioning. Its very important to me to be able to help edit this article and improve it. Being born with Autism, has made me a weird, different, special, emotional, and very disciplined person. Can you explain if the article is 100% complete or requires further ediiting? if so what needs to be edited? Noam Atadgy (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Noam, welcome to (English) Wikipedia! I don't know that anyone's going to be likely to respond to you telling you what they feel needs to be edited. I'd suggest being bold, and reviewing the article for yourself and making any changes that you feel will improve the article. That said, I'd also recommend being careful, making small numbers of relatively incremental edits (say, five at a time at most), and leaving edit summaries so other editors know what your intentions are. If you're adding information, you absolutely should provide reliable sources in the form of citations. It's reasonably likely that with an article of this nature your edits may be reverted; if and when that happens, please don't take it personally, but rather consider it a teachable moment, and above all, if that happens, please don't simply reinstate your edit(s), but rather initiate a discussion here or with the reverting editor, as suggested at WP:BRD. That way, other editors can review the situation as well and provide their counsel. I'm happy to try to answer any general questions you may have. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My brain works a bit differently. It affects how I see the world, how I communicate, and how I interact with people. It’s just a part of who I am, not something that needs to be fixed. It comes with its own strengths and challenges, but it's always been a part of my life. In essence, that is, I have autism as well. 206.57.152.111 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Over the last few years I've occasionally tried to improve Wikipedia's autism coverage, working to bring it up to date with modern understandings and so on. For example, in 2022 I put in a lot of work to ensure the 'Autism' entry was merged with 'Autism Spectrum' (rather than the entry under that title focusing mainly on 'classic' or 'Kanner' autism). I also started work on a substantial rewrite of the page with a couple of other editors, but I think we all got kind of burned out on arguing with people every step of the way.

Obviously this page - in common with other autism-related pages - has been a bit of a battle-ground at times. No surprise there, when you look at how controversial practically everything about autism is in the wider world! Still, I think the result is a page (a set of pages, actually) that badly needs bringing up to date, and where all attempts to do so tend to be exhausting, especially for any newcomers. Effectively, some of the material here is so out of date and/or one-sided as to constitute misinformation, while we completely miss out some absolutely key things about autistic experience that anyone living, working with or being an autistic person really ought to know about.

In the hopes of helping people to understand these issues and how they come about, I ended up writing a long article for Thinking Person's Guide to Autism about 'How Wikipedia Systematically Misleads People About Autism' (edited 2024-11-25 to reflect published title and URL). This may also help motivate some more people to work on bringing Wikipedia up to date on all this.

I'm posting this here because I thought existing Wikipedians should know about it: it could potentially be considered 'canvasing'; and I figured that anyone looking at this Talk page might find it an interesting read, which could help inform how they think about this and related articles. There are also some questions in there which I'd be interested in other editors' answers to. It's packed with references to further reading - I tried to ensure that anything vaguely contentious (or little-known) was backed up with high-quality citations.

I'm happy to answer any questions here, or by email. Thanks!

Oolong (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To keep Wikipedians updated: the essay has now been published as How Wikipedia Systematically Misleads People About Autism; for those who prefer Wiki-style formatting and referencing, it's also here as User:Oolong/injustice.

I've also put a short video up on TikTok and Instagram, hoping to engage more people to help fix some of the substantial, outstanding issues with this and related entries. Oolong (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In recent weeks, some commenters have been contesting the article's referral to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder and that it's characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity levels, and risks or causes. A series of diplomatic discussions have occurred across various sections of talk pages with no clear conclusion. In this post, I provide a systematic review of the scientific evidence and Wikipedia Guidelines, leading to a robust conclusion on the continuity of this article.

Methods

I systematically gathered peer-reviewed reports, consensus statements and international or national guidelines through browsing journals, the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) and Google Scholar as well as by referring to citations in existing discussions. From this literature, I extracted a strong evidence base.

The terms "globally" refers to countries around the world while "internationally" refers to at least several countries or a particular continent.

Key terms are marked in bold.

Citations are marked and linked numerically (e.g., [1]).

The review is not intended to be absolutely comprehensive but sufficiently searched to reveal a clear scientific consensus and the indications from Wikipedia Guidelines.

The Evidence

The ICD-11 and World Health Organization (WHO), guidelines used globally, conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder and that "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". [1

The DSM-5 criteria, used internationally, concludes that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder; per diagnosis that "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning" and that "Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior". 2

Guidelines from the UK National Institute of Health & Care Excellence (NICE) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder. They write "The clinical picture of autism is variable because of differences in the severity of autism itself". 3 NICE guidelines also refer to "symptoms of possible autism..." 4

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Guidelines conclude that "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological and developmental disorder" and acknowledge the existence of "signs and symptoms of ASD". 5 Paradoxically, a different NIMH publication advocates against some of the above [6].

The European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) and Autism Europe (AE) guidelines, used internationally, conclude that "autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is now recognised not only as a childhood disorder but as a heterogeneous, neurodevelopmental condition that persists throughout life". They also state that "Earlier recognition of autism symptoms could also be improved...". 7

German AWMF guidelines conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder in accordance with the above guidelines. 8

National Guidelines in France conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, with varying severity levels, characterised by the presence of significant impairment per the DSM-5 and ICD-11 (9).

A scientific consensus statement on the evaluation of ASD conclude that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, with varying severity levels and is characterised by symptoms and the presence of impairments (National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders et al., 2018)).

Consensus Guidelines on ASD concluded that "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with an estimated lifetime prevalence of at least 1% (Baird et al., 2006; Brugha et al., 2011). Core symptoms include..." (Howes et al., 2018).

Canada's national diagnostic guidelines from the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) conclude autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder; that "[children with ASD] can present with a wide range and severity of symptoms"; that "This statement proposes three ASD diagnostic approaches, the choice of which depends upon the paediatric care provider’s clinical experience and judgment, and the complexity of symptom presentation" (CPS, updated: 2024).

The International Consensus Statement on ADHD, authored by 80 scientists, coendorsed by 403 experts and numerous associations, across 27 countries and 6 continents (Faraone et al., 2022) conclude that ADHD [another neurodevelopmental disorder] "is rarely caused by a single genetic or environmental risk factor but most cases of ADHD are caused by the combined effects of many genetic and environmental risks". Systematic reviews and meta-analyses unanimously use the term "risks" in the context of Autism as well, not just that specific neurodevelopmental disorder (Dietert et al., 2010; Mojgan et al., 2017; Belmonte et al., 2022).

It appears that some blog posts, advocacy papers and a textbook advocate for a change in terms deviating from calling ASD a neurodevelopmental disorder but simply a neurodiversity with "likelihoods" rather than "risks" and mere "traits" rather than symptoms and impairments.10,11,12. Note that these are advocating for something that is not currently established. Thus, they are not sources that can overturn the global scientific consensus that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder as it's currently defined. Notably, other textbooks do not share such views (e.g., Volkmar, 2021). As cited in this WP article, other peer-reviewed reviews disagree with these advocations (Neison et al., 2021; Shields et al., 2021). Note that blog posts are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers and thus are not reputable in comparison to this literature. This Wikipedia article at the time of writing does a well-balanced view of the ongoing debate about whether an alteration in terms should take place in the future.

As shown by this extensive evidence, traits of autism are in fact not autism; you must be significantly impaired by those symptoms to be diagnosable, which arise from neurobiological factors. This is why it's a neurodevelopmental disorder with the requirement of present impairment in addition to symptoms.

Wikipedia Guidelines

"It is important to note that in forming its consensus it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is scientific and what is questionable science or pseudoscience. Public opinion or promoters of what is considered pseudoscience by the scientific consensus hold no sway in that determination." (Wikipedia:Scientific consensus).

Conclusion

There is a clear global scientific consensus across guideline developers, international consensus statements, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and other peer-reviewed reports that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels. The consensus appears to be less evident for the appropriateness of the terms "risks" and "causes", but there is no evidence to suggest these two terms are specifically inaccurate as opposed to interchangeable with other terms like "likelihood". According to Wikipedia guidelines, scientific consensus is one of, if not, the the most robust source to rely on in substantiating content and facts; that public opinion or promoters of contrary statements in no way influence that determination. Thus, autism must continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder defined with symptoms and impairments. However, the terms "risks", "causes", "contributions/contributing factors" and "likelihood" may be used interchangeably in some contexts without invalidating the other. I hope these findings help inform decisions on the status of this article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It should be noted, however, that in medical contexts, such as psychiatric services providers, there is an increasing substitution of the term 'condition' for the term 'disorder'. This will most probably increase in the future, though it does not amount to a consensus at present. Urselius (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the scientific consensus above consistently uses the term disorder in the medical context. Condition can be interchangeable with the term, in some contexts, but it’s not a replacement of it by any means. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scientific papers, presumably used to create a 'scientific consensus', will inevitably lag behind the usage of active clinicians. This is because at any one time the sum of all papers will have a bias towards those written in the past, a proportion of which may have been written many years in the past. This effect is exacerbated by the time lag between writing a paper and it appearing as a published work, which is often considerable. I merely suggest that changes in clinical usage need to be kept under watch. I am an author of many biomedical papers, so I know whereof I speak. Urselius (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The references are published in reputable journals or the sites of national guidelines to be viewed by clinicians, so their findings are not in some pending pre-published state as you imply here. Yes, scientific findings and their dissemination take time to influence clinical practice. However, those guidelines and consensus statements are standardised internationally and are used by healthcare providers at this time until they are succeeded with a new revision, something I know also as a clinical researcher. Secondary literature published throughout this year unanimously use the term, which indicates it remains relevant ,as it has for decades. Individuals indeedm ay be idiosyncratic in their usage of termds but that provides no evidence against the standardisation/scientific consensus. The literature should be checked periodically for any novel changes but that can apply to other topics as well. Thanks for writing. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You seem to read whatever I write as though I have some form of agenda that I do not possess. Faced with your seeming inability to comprehend what I mean, which in essence is that all things are mutable, including biomedical usage, further conversation is pointless. Urselius (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have comprehended and addressed your reasoning. For example, you state "This effect is exacerbated by the time lag between writing a paper and it appearing as a published work, which is often considerable" and I replied "The references are published in reputable journals or the sites of national guidelines to be viewed by clinicians, so their findings are not in some pending pre-published state as you imply here." and importantly that "Secondary literature published throughout this year unanimously use the term, which indicates it remains relevant ,as it has for decades". This indicates the term remains relevant irrespective of the publication of the guidelines. Another point I made, that I'd like to emphasise is that the DSM-5 and ICD-11 require the term "ASD" is used in diagnoses until a subsequent revision may change it. The date of their publication doesn't change that until any such new versions release. That said, one shouldn't rely exclusively on standardisations like the DSM-5/ICD-11 but they are highly relevant in this context.

And I certainly didn't believe you had an agenda nor implied one. I don't mind if you want to stop conversing here but if you can't understand that I've addressed your points explictly, it's not my problem. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What are the diffs showing where this is contested? I cannot find them in the edit history. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of it took place in the section “Risk?” I think Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A diff is the edit in the edit history that shows someone has contested the term. This is a diff [14] where you added a very strong invisible comment for editors. Are there any diffs showing anyone actually tried to change that text? Also, we don't actually have a Risk section. What am I missing? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I meant the section “Risk?” in the talk page; no editing took place in regards to that recently, from my knowledge Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. I should have realised you meant the talk page. Okay. I am going to soften that invisible note though. We are getting a lot of notes in this article, and where they represent a consensus and an area of long term conflict (like the stacking cans image), they are helpful. They are helpful for pointing editors to the discussion and consensus, but are not binding over normal policy and guidance. The place for discussion is here (as you have it). I'll just change the note to ask editors to notice the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so sure that I'd agree, unless there is a strict guideline indicating so. The purpose of those notes were to preempt alterations that are based on extensively disproven reasoning, as there is a tendency for that to happen in this sort of article. So I still think it's useful to refer to a specific talk page and summate the reasoning in the note itself as well rather than merely suggest one initiate a new section when one has already taken place substantiating the terms. The supporting evidence is too lengthy and contextual to be cited in the article,really. Thanks for your reply. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I am not sure if there is a specific guideline about such notes, but the point is that the place for detailed rationale is the talk page. Editors are under no obligation to respect or even retain comments in the article text (all of which are delivered to reader, albeit not obviously). On the other hand, editors are obliged to leave discussion on a talk page. They can reply to it but not remove it. I have only seen notes like these used in the past on matters where there has been extensive edit warring, and where new editors are inclined to make bold changes without checking the talk page. In such cases they are a useful flag to editors that they should discuss and not be bold - that their edit is controversial. I think that is what you want here, if pre-emptively. But I think it best to point editors to the page rather than assert a position that is (to my mind) right. Right but not yet fully discussed. Still, if others think the long form of the note is better, I'll not fight it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's understandable. Perhaps we can use such notes if edit warring does occur in the future, but my main worry is that the article might be changed to frame ASD as a mere "neurodiversity" and noone will contest the decision in the first place. It's a quite popular viewpoint amongst some advocates, but certainly not in the scientific and medical literature. Nonetheless, I will try to keep an eye on the page as much as I can and voice my opinion if something like that happens, hopefully others will as well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mitch Ames did you see my edit summary here? [15]. You have removed the acronym again as "unused" but it is used. Thus we should expand it on first use per web content accessibility guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did see your edit summary, but the use of the term in the reference title is irrelevant. It is not the article's responsibility to expand an acronym used in the title of a reference. We are not using the acronym as a replacement for a term (in the article) - we are merely quoting the article title verbatim. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

MOS:ACRO1STUSE, in line with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, says an acronym should be written out in full for the first time, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used again in the article. There are no exceptions for acronyms used in quotations or titles. It is the responsibility of the creator of a web page to ensure that the page complies with web content accessibility guidelines and Wikipedia policies. The acronym is on the page, so it should be expanded. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above ^. That is how I typically see this on the site, per WCAG Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

MOS:ACRO1STUSE says (emphasis mine) "... the abbreviation in parentheses ... if it is used again in the article". Although "the article" includes the references, I suggest that that intent of that guideline is "used again in the article content (lead, table of contents, body)".

In any case...

• In the first reference^[1], the term "NICE" is not "used", it is "mentioned", as part of the web page title (and the website address).
• In the second reference^[2] the publisher is listed as "NICE" - the name that their website repeatedly and almost exclusively uses to identify itself, including when describing themselves at https://www.nice.org.uk/about. Although we are using (rather than mentioning) "NICE" in this reference, I argue that we are not using the term as abbreviation of the full name, instead we are using the name that the organisation itself uses, so we do not need to define it.
• Given that NICE's own website almost exclusively uses "NICE", not "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence", I suggest that it is "most commonly known by its acronym, in which case the expansion can be omitted".
• With regard to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, in both references (and in particular the second) the reader may click on the term to find out what it means, which satisfies Success Criterion 3.1.4 Abbrevations by way of Technique G55 Linking to definitions.

Mitch Ames (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first reference is a title, and the reference makes it clear it is from NICE. Who are NICE? the reader might wonder. Yes, indeed, they can click through to the reference and see it right there in the top left hand corner. Er... if they can see. But, in fact, that text banner in the top left of their page is not text at all but a scalable vector graphic (svg) and has no alternative description. The DIV on the page calls it a logo, but as an SVG, it doesn't benefit from alt text. It's just a chunk of data. Despite allegedly having an accessible site, the NICE site does not seem to expand the NICE acronym for the reader. That's an accessibility fail! This is the case for the second link too. So we have two references on the page, and the first one, labelled "... | Guidance | Nice" and a link to the nice.org.uk website, supporting the text "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" and for some reason we shouldn't put (NICE) in brackets beside it per MOS:ACRO1STUSE? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

the NICE site does not seem to expand the NICE acronym for the reader. That's an accessibility fail! — So send a feedback to them and ask them to fix their website. The Wikipedia link satisfies Technique G55 - and thus Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

In any case I still assert that having the acronym in the references is not "using" it for the purposes of MOS:ACRO1STUSE. Would you have this (and any other) Wikipedia article also explicitly define the acronyms doi, issn, lccn, pmc, pmid s2cid etc as used in the references? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't meet G55, because we are not linking to the definition. The definition is not visible to anyone using a screen reader. I would indeed argue for similar expansion in any text where we discuss, for instance, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). This is clearly better for a term that usually goes by its initialism and is expanded in full in the text. As for whether we could just use the initialism - that would not work for NICE in an international encyclopaedia. What might be instantly recognisable in the UK would certainly not be recognisable elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a citation for the percentage of fraternal twins both having autism spectrum disorder: Rosenberg RE, Law JK, Yenokyan G, McGready J, Kaufmann WE, Law PA. Characteristics and concordance of autism spectrum disorders among 277 twin pairs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009 Oct;163(10):907-14. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.98. PMID: 19805709. Sunnyjw (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done, thanks for finding that. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

From I’ve gathered, some people on here started clutching pearls over a picture of a child stacking cans that’s been up for years, because apparently the lifelong disorder with noticeable signs commonly beginning in childhood (one of which is the said stacking of cans) shouldn’t have an photo that reflects that. But even if you wanted to do your science by council, you need only look up the keywords “Wikipedia,” “kid,” and, “autism” in literally any order whatsoever and I’d be very impressed if you didn’t realize that the amount of people who prefer or feel represented by the image (including the parents of the actual child) vastly outnumbers those that for whatever reason do not. I feel ridiculous for even having to type some of this. Apparently, other photos throughout the article have also been deleted purely because, from what I can tell, one or two people didn’t like the subjects in them. If you’re going to start stripping articles whenever a few people begin to complain and wait until “a clear consensus has been reached” over everything, you’ll wind up with the most barebones site, especially if it’s over something as innocuous as this. Zeltzamer (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am somewhat tempted to open a WP:RFC regarding this as I've seen it be debated so many times on here but I'm not sure if that is the best path moving forward. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you cannot see that representing a lifelong condition through an image depicting a non-universal behaviour enacted by a toddler is fundamentally inappropriate, then nothing anyone says will have any effect on your thought processes. I am a diagnosed autist, I never stacked cans or lined up toys. Despite having long bouts of selective mutism at infant school and other problems, my autism was not picked up in childhood. I was diagnosed in late adulthood. The photo has zero relevance to me and to many other autistic people. Urselius (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with @Urselius. That image is trivialising and portrays the disorder in a very superficial way. The inclusion of an image is not necessary nor a matter of urgency so its much more preferable to have no image at all unless one can be proposed that at least attempts to offer some comprehensive or underlying depiction of ASD, as we see in the ADHD article for instance. Understand that to find an acceptable image is problematic not because of some baseless disagreement happening in the talk pages here, but the complexity of the topic and the absence of a unified construct that can be depicted in an image are the main constraints. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14 § Identity-first language for autistic people categories. Raladic (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The section is now called "Signs and symptoms" but I liked the old name. I don't care if "symptoms" is common in books if some autistic people don't like it we should try to avoid it, the old name worked fine.

Can people other then Димитрий Улянов Иванов respond? Anthony2106 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies but I must reply to this. First, to preface, to say you “lied” in the edit summary about why you restored the edit may qualify as vandalism. I won’t personally revert it now, but please be mindful of doing such things.

Wikipedia Guidelines state “It is important to note that in forming its consensus it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is scientific and what is questionable science or pseudoscience. Public opinion or promoters of what is considered pseudoscience by the scientific consensus hold no sway in that determination." (Wikipedia:Scientific consensus).

A global scientific consensus has been demonstrated on the page section entitled “Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?”. The term symptoms and impairments are used primarily in national and international guidelines, consensus statements, standardised diagnostic criteria, systematic reviews and other secondary scientific sources but signs are as well so including both gives due weight.

Thus, the classification must be kept to comply WK guidelines. I will keep making and adhering to these points unless the references are adequately addressed. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is a strong case to made that 'symptoms' is inaccurate and inappropriate here, and it's not at all clear what advantages it has over the alternative.

I see that the Signs and symptoms page describes them as "diagnostic indications of an illness, injury, or condition." The 'nutshell' summary of the page just says "Indications of a specific illness, including psychiatric", which obviously doesn't fit. Similarly, the Cambridge Dictionary defines "symptom" as "any feeling of illness or physical or mental change that is caused by a particular disease" - again, autism is not considered a disease by reputable sources, making the use of the term inappropriate here.

If the intention of this section is merely to summarise the diagnostic criteria (which is how I interpret the page linked above) then 'Diagnostic criteria' would be a more accurate heading. If we want a section on common characteristics, I wonder if we should also have that, given how much the existing diagnostic criteria miss out or mischaracterise!

I have raised a set of related questions over on WikiProject Medicine (explored more deeply in my recent article). It is not clear what the medical framework really adds to this article, and interpreting it rigidly seems to be actively hampering its usefulness as an encyclopaedic entry. Oolong (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, it is not "inaccurate" nor "inappropriate". I'd like to cite and contextualise the evidence for this so others don't miss it. Hopefully it can be addressed in this thread against the references you have provided above, which are not related specifically to Autism. As one reads the evidence here, keep in mind my comment above about what Wikipedia guidelines mandate:

References

The ICD-11 and World Health Organization (WHO), guidelines used globally, conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder and that "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". [1] . This Wikipedia article also has concluded that "ICD-11 was produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".

The DSM-5 criteria, used internationally, concludes that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder; per diagnosis that "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning" and that "Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior". 2

Guidelines from the UK National Institute of Health & Care Excellence (NICE) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder. They write "The clinical picture of autism is variable because of differences in the severity of autism itself". 3 NICE guidelines also refer to "symptoms of possible autism..." 4

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Guidelines conclude that "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological and developmental disorder" and acknowledge the existence of "signs and symptoms of ASD". 5 Paradoxically, a different NIMH publication advocates against some of the above [6].

The European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) and Autism Europe (AE) guidelines, used internationally, conclude that "autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is now recognised not only as a childhood disorder but as a heterogeneous, neurodevelopmental condition that persists throughout life". They also state that "Earlier recognition of autism symptoms could also be improved...". 7

German AWMF guidelines conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels in accordance with the above guidelines. 8

National Guidelines in France conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, with varying severity levels, characterised by symptoms and the presence of significant impairment, endorsing the DSM-5 and ICD-11(9).

A scientific consensus statement on the evaluation of ASD conclude that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, with varying severity levels and is characterised by symptoms and the presence of impairments (National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders et al., 2018)).

Consensus Guidelines on ASD concluded that "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with an estimated lifetime prevalence of at least 1% (Baird et al., 2006; Brugha et al., 2011). Core symptoms include..." (Howes et al., 2018).

Canada's national diagnostic guidelines from the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) conclude autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder; that "[children with ASD] can present with a wide range and severity of symptoms"; that "This statement proposes three ASD diagnostic approaches, the choice of which depends upon the paediatric care provider’s clinical experience and judgment, and the complexity of symptom presentation" (CPS, updated: 2024).

The International Consensus Statement on ADHD, authored by 80 scientists, coendorsed by 403 experts and numerous associations, across 27 countries and 6 continents (Faraone et al., 2022) conclude that ADHD [another neurodevelopmental disorder] "the clinical significance of the signs and symptoms of the disorder has been recognized for over two centuries". This shows the term symptoms and signs are both applicable to neurodevelopmental disorders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses use these terms for Autism as well, not just that specific neurodevelopmental disorder (Dietert et al., 2010; Mojgan et al., 2017; Belmonte et al., 2022).

It appears that some blog posts, advocacy papers and a textbook advocate for a change in terms deviating from calling ASD a neurodevelopmental disorder but simply a neurodiversity wit mere "traits" rather than symptoms and impairments.10,11,12. Note that these are advocating for something that is not currently established. Thus, they are not sources that can overturn the global scientific consensus that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder as it's currently defined. Notably, other textbooks do not share such views (e.g., Volkmar, 2021). As cited in this WP article, other peer-reviewed reviews disagree with these advocations (Neison et al., 2021; Shields et al., 2021). Note that blog posts are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers and thus are not reputable in comparison to this literature. This Wikipedia article at the time of writing does a well-balanced view of the ongoing debate about whether an alteration in terms should take place in the future. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Among other problems, this article is way too long and verbose. Without the references, I think it comes to more than 12,000 words. In line with Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forks, we should be looking at leaving out chunks that have their own entries, perhaps including just a very short summary within the article body. We probably want to lose at least 3,000 words.

Articles being this long is a problem both for readability and maintainability - I suspect that the sheer size of the entry is a big part of the reason it's been allowed to get so out of date.

The lead has six paragraphs, and a couple of them are long enough that they should probably be split in two, with a total of about 600 words. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states: "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." In other words, we should almost certainly be looking at cutting out about a third to a half of the lead. I would suggest we follow Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section and try to keep this section down to no more than four paragraphs. Oolong (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems unusual that an entire subsection has been designated for just one sentence on the topic. While it does link to the accompanying wikipedia article for further details, it would probably be better that such a short description was placed under a more overarching area (like associated features) or was expanded. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should we use {{Excerpt}}? or make it bigger? Anthony2106 (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rather than covering autistic burnout in a separate section, I suggest to create a section on (mental) well-being that could cover topics that are discussed in more detail in the Autism-friendly entry. This would also help to address the concern that the current article is overly focused on ASD as a medical condition.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I'd rather it be expanded if possible as I'm sure there is more to be mentioned, which is better than maintaining it at it's current length. If that's problematic, it can certainly be moved to a more overarching section. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply